-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 553
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
src/sage/doctest/forker.py
: Show '# [failed in baseline]' earlier
#36936
src/sage/doctest/forker.py
: Show '# [failed in baseline]' earlier
#36936
Conversation
044a721
to
48cde67
Compare
How about The test is not yet run, so we should say that " And no brackets? |
Not sure about the wording. Would it help if we include the filename ( |
Better to be short. Anyway, developers should learn about the precise meaning of the message if they are interested. We cannot explain everything in the small space without cluttering. |
May be "conda baseline"? |
OK, I'm logging it just once at the beginning |
In my view, the past tense refers to the time when the baseline was established |
Then I don't understand the phrase "failed in the baseline" here. By the dictionary definition, "the baseline" is the line from which we measure quality of someone or something. We collected a list of files that fail persistently (or randomly persistently), and regard the list as part of "the baseline". So if the file fails again in this run, then it is not a failure measured from "the baseline". You express this by "Failed (but it is) in the baseline". No? Now you use the same phrase in "sage -t ... # failed in the baseline". The comment is about "sage -t ...". At this moment, nothing yet failed or it may not fail at all. I cannot understand the same phrase "failed in the baseline" as above. You want to say that "this may fail but it is in the baseline". No? |
I see. So you mean "[This file] failed when the baseline was established" by "failed in the baseline". |
Yes. And in the summary line, when it says
... it means it failed just now (and also it failed when the baseline was established). |
OK. It makes sense to me now. |
You may want to use this explanation when you explain the new facility in the developer manual or in the release tour. |
it's already in the manual |
bottom of this subsection: https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/doctesting.html#auxiliary-files |
Yes. The phrase "[failed in baseline]" is explained there. Good enough. Here "=" is necessary. Otherwise looks good to me. It works well. |
Both ways of writing are actually fine with the Python argparse. See examples just above that do |
Instead of There's no |
But
|
hm... let me check |
Yes, there is one:
|
Likely this custom code https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/src/bin/sage-runtests#L131 is to blame |
I'll take another look at this tomorrow. |
Fixed now |
Thanks. This is an example run:
|
This last commit takes care of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7306041656/job/19910309897?pr=36938#step:11:8651
Marked "blocker" so that this takes effect in PR runs. |
It's just a codepath in the doctester that so far has not been subject to the baseline mechanism. Various codepaths that are for internal failures of the doctesting framework are like this; but this particular codepath is triggered by doctests that test some timeout functionality. The failure itself is already added to the known failures in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36937/files#diff-c6591fddad6cbbb6477ab5e8cc342b6c7b89b09f2707c7cc7aa818b52693448dR77 |
…mework' baseline-aware
0bfd2c9
to
19f64d4
Compare
if hasattr(result_dict, 'tb'): | ||
log(result_dict.tb) | ||
if hasattr(result_dict, 'walltime'): | ||
stats[basename] = {"failed": True, "walltime": wall, "ntests": ntests} | ||
else: | ||
stats[basename] = {"failed": True, "walltime": 1e6, "ntests": ntests} | ||
self.error_status |= 64 | ||
if not baseline.get('failed', False): # e.g. AlarmInterrupt in doctesting framework | ||
self.error_status |= 64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The comment is hard to understand. How about
# We may get here by e.g. AlarmInterrupt in doctesting framework
if not baseline.get('failed', False):
self.error_status |= 64
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks; improved in f61cb9a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for nitpicking. But one reason why the comment is hard to understand is that the comment is inside the if statement. The comment is about the whole if statement, I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We add a comment for the thing which is below or to the left. No? (Sometimes what I take as granted is not really granted...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are right, I've fixed it in cf9024f
Otherwise, lgtm. |
f61cb9a
to
cf9024f
Compare
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit cf9024f; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks.
Thank you! |
sagemathgh-36936: `src/sage/doctest/forker.py`: Show '# [failed in baseline]' earlier <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> The note "[failed in baseline]" already appears in the doctest failure summary. Here we add the note also to the `sage -t` line during doctesting: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:2744 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/combinatorial_map.py [75 tests, 0.05 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/cluster_algebra_quiver/quiver.py # [failed in baseline] [320 tests, 3.73 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/composition_signed.py [20 tests, 0.16 s] ``` https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:9192 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/setenv.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/clean.py # [failed in baseline] ********************************************************************** File "src/sage_setup/clean.py", line 104, in sage_setup.clean._find_stale_files Failed example: for f in stale_iter: if f.endswith(skip_extensions): continue if '/ext_data/' in f: continue print('Found stale file: ' + f) Expected nothing Got: Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract-algebra/actions- sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage.py ``` The changes in the code that implement this are also preparation for: - sagemath#36558. <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [ ] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36936 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe
sagemathgh-36936: `src/sage/doctest/forker.py`: Show '# [failed in baseline]' earlier <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> The note "[failed in baseline]" already appears in the doctest failure summary. Here we add the note also to the `sage -t` line during doctesting: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:2744 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/combinatorial_map.py [75 tests, 0.05 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/cluster_algebra_quiver/quiver.py # [failed in baseline] [320 tests, 3.73 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/composition_signed.py [20 tests, 0.16 s] ``` https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:9192 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/setenv.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/clean.py # [failed in baseline] ********************************************************************** File "src/sage_setup/clean.py", line 104, in sage_setup.clean._find_stale_files Failed example: for f in stale_iter: if f.endswith(skip_extensions): continue if '/ext_data/' in f: continue print('Found stale file: ' + f) Expected nothing Got: Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract-algebra/actions- sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage.py ``` The changes in the code that implement this are also preparation for: - sagemath#36558. <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [ ] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36936 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe
sagemathgh-36936: `src/sage/doctest/forker.py`: Show '# [failed in baseline]' earlier <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> The note "[failed in baseline]" already appears in the doctest failure summary. Here we add the note also to the `sage -t` line during doctesting: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:2744 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/combinatorial_map.py [75 tests, 0.05 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/cluster_algebra_quiver/quiver.py # [failed in baseline] [320 tests, 3.73 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage/combinat/composition_signed.py [20 tests, 0.16 s] ``` https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065 ?pr=36936#step:11:9192 ``` sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/setenv.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage -t --random-seed=256963700569517996050547927079750684585 src/sage_setup/clean.py # [failed in baseline] ********************************************************************** File "src/sage_setup/clean.py", line 104, in sage_setup.clean._find_stale_files Failed example: for f in stale_iter: if f.endswith(skip_extensions): continue if '/ext_data/' in f: continue print('Found stale file: ' + f) Expected nothing Got: Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract-algebra/actions- sage-exercises.py Found stale file: sage/tests/books/judson-abstract- algebra/homomorph-sage.py ``` The changes in the code that implement this are also preparation for: - sagemath#36558. <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [ ] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36936 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe
sagemathgh-36937: CI Conda: Add to known-test-failures Not all of the added failures are conda-specific, but the 6 instances of CI Conda amplify the error probability (sagemath#36694 (comment)) We also add info (ideally a link to the GitHub Issue where the failure is reported) to the failures and arrange for it to be printed by the doctester as part of the `[failed in baseline]` message. Marked as blocker so it takes effect in CI runs -- to reduce the noise from failures of the Conda CI that PR authors and reviewers find distracting. <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 (which refactors the `[failed in baseline]` printing) <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36937 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
sagemathgh-36937: CI Conda: Add to known-test-failures Not all of the added failures are conda-specific, but the 6 instances of CI Conda amplify the error probability (sagemath#36694 (comment)) We also add info (ideally a link to the GitHub Issue where the failure is reported) to the failures and arrange for it to be printed by the doctester as part of the `[failed in baseline]` message. Marked as blocker so it takes effect in CI runs -- to reduce the noise from failures of the Conda CI that PR authors and reviewers find distracting. <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 (which refactors the `[failed in baseline]` printing) <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36937 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
sagemathgh-36937: CI Conda: Add to known-test-failures Not all of the added failures are conda-specific, but the 6 instances of CI Conda amplify the error probability (sagemath#36694 (comment)) We also add info (ideally a link to the GitHub Issue where the failure is reported) to the failures and arrange for it to be printed by the doctester as part of the `[failed in baseline]` message. Marked as blocker so it takes effect in CI runs -- to reduce the noise from failures of the Conda CI that PR authors and reviewers find distracting. <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 (which refactors the `[failed in baseline]` printing) <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36937 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
sagemathgh-36937: CI Conda: Add to known-test-failures Not all of the added failures are conda-specific, but the 6 instances of CI Conda amplify the error probability (sagemath#36694 (comment)) We also add info (ideally a link to the GitHub Issue where the failure is reported) to the failures and arrange for it to be printed by the doctester as part of the `[failed in baseline]` message. Marked as blocker so it takes effect in CI runs -- to reduce the noise from failures of the Conda CI that PR authors and reviewers find distracting. <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 (which refactors the `[failed in baseline]` printing) <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36937 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
sagemathgh-36937: CI Conda: Add to known-test-failures Not all of the added failures are conda-specific, but the 6 instances of CI Conda amplify the error probability (sagemath#36694 (comment)) We also add info (ideally a link to the GitHub Issue where the failure is reported) to the failures and arrange for it to be printed by the doctester as part of the `[failed in baseline]` message. Marked as blocker so it takes effect in CI runs -- to reduce the noise from failures of the Conda CI that PR authors and reviewers find distracting. <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 (which refactors the `[failed in baseline]` printing) <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36937 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
sagemathgh-36938: CI Build & Test: Show doctest failures, warnings as annotations in the 'Files changed' tab <!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> This prints doctest failures as github annotations. For illustrating this new feature, the branch on sagemath#36558 provokes some errors. As seen in the "Files changed" tab over there (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36558/files): - Doctest failures show as errors next to the doctest in source code - Doctest warnings show as "warnings" - Doctest failures from files that "failed in baseline" show as "notices" These messages can also be seen in the Summary page of the workflow (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7359388426?pr=36558). Clicking on a message leads to the source code location. <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#36936 <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#36938 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Alex J Best, Matthias Köppe, Tobias Diez
The note "[failed in baseline]" already appears in the doctest failure summary.
Here we add the note also to the
sage -t
line during doctesting:https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065?pr=36936#step:11:2744
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7281940815/job/19843412065?pr=36936#step:11:9192
The changes in the code that implement this are also preparation for:
sage -t --format github
(illustration) #36558.📝 Checklist
⌛ Dependencies