No description provided.
Bugfix: Skip tests for tools not being built #23027
pull luke-jr wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from luke-jr:bugfix_util_test_config changing 2 files +17 −3-
luke-jr commented at 4:56 PM on September 18, 2021: member
- DrahtBot added the label Build system on Sep 18, 2021
- DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 18, 2021
-
fanquake commented at 4:44 AM on September 21, 2021: member
Not sure what you expect to be done here. Even if Github, Appveyor and DrahtBot are all wrong about there being a conflict, if this PR can't be merged using the merge-script (it currently can't), it's not going to be merged. The fact that no CI is running is also a blocker. I'd suggest rebasing on a master more recent than April 2020.
-
maflcko commented at 6:52 AM on September 21, 2021: member
DrahtBot and appveyor use the GitHub API, so this is mostly a GitHub bug.
-
maflcko commented at 1:03 PM on December 22, 2021: member
My suggestion would be to close this pull request, since it is not possible to merge with the merge script without modifying it.
-
luke-jr commented at 5:17 PM on December 22, 2021: member
Please open a new, separate issue for bugs in your merge script/bots. It's off-topic here.
This PR still merges cleanly to master. 0.20, and 0.21.
-
Bugfix: Skip tests for tools not being built 41ff6c343e
- luke-jr force-pushed on Dec 22, 2021
-
kristapsk commented at 6:41 PM on December 22, 2021: contributor
Btw, I'm using the same recent
github-merge.pyscript for JoinMarket, it also fails with empty pull request description. - DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 22, 2021
-
DrahtBot commented at 3:17 PM on September 23, 2022: contributor
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Conflicts
No conflicts as of last run.
-
achow101 commented at 6:40 PM on October 12, 2022: member
Are you still working on this?
-
luke-jr commented at 8:13 PM on November 9, 2022: member
There's nothing to work on. It just needs review.
-
in test/config.ini.in:24 in 41ff6c343e
19 | @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ RPCAUTH=@abs_top_srcdir@/share/rpcauth/rpcauth.py 20 | @USE_BDB_TRUE@USE_BDB=true 21 | @BUILD_BITCOIN_CLI_TRUE@ENABLE_CLI=true 22 | @BUILD_BITCOIN_WALLET_TRUE@ENABLE_WALLET_TOOL=true 23 | +@BUILD_BITCOIN_TX_TRUE@ENABLE_UTIL_TX=true 24 | +@BUILD_BITCOIN_UTIL_TRUE@ENABLE_UTIL_UTIL=true
fanquake commented at 11:56 AM on February 6, 2023:We already have
ENABLE_BITCOIN_UTIL, so we should use that.achow101 requested review from theuni on Apr 25, 2023theuni changes_requestedtheuni commented at 3:48 PM on May 4, 2023: member@luke-jr If you're still interested in this, I agree with the previous reviewers:
- PR needs a description, if only for posterity
- As @fanquake mentioned,
ENABLE_BITCOIN_UTILcould be used here.
I'm not at all familiar with the test framework, but this looks a lot like a re-implementation of something that's already cleanly abstracted. What exactly isn't getting correctly skipped?
fanquake marked this as a draft on May 12, 2023fanquake commented at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2023: memberDrafting for now, given review comments and questions above.
DrahtBot commented at 9:20 AM on August 8, 2023: contributor<!--8ac04cdde196e94527acabf64b896448-->
There hasn't been much activity lately. What is the status here?
Finding reviewers may take time. However, if the patch is no longer relevant, please close this pull request. If the author lost interest or time to work on this, please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.
maflcko commented at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2023: memberMay want to close this, given the ongoing cmake transition obsoletes it either way?
fanquake commented at 12:33 PM on August 17, 2023: memberMay want to close this, given the ongoing cmake transition obsoletes it either way?
Think I agree. If the (asked-for) review/questions are addressed, can still be re-opened.
fanquake closed this on Aug 17, 2023bitcoin locked this on Aug 16, 2024
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bitcoin. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-14 15:14 UTC
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me