WIP, BUG: futures with dir switching#2069
WIP, BUG: futures with dir switching#2069tylerjereddy wants to merge 1 commit intocoveragepy:mainfrom
Conversation
* Fixes coveragepygh-2065. * Add a regression test for the failure to collect `.coverage` files when parent and child (`concurrent.futures`) processes have different directory contexts. This test fails for the expected reason it seems. * Add a patch that fixes the problem described in the matching issue, but for some reason does not manage to restore the desired behavior in the regression test (something I'm not understanding about the "meta" testing?)
| for fname in os.listdir(): | ||
| if fname.startswith(".coverage."): | ||
| if not os.path.exists(os.path.join(self.orig_dir, fname)): | ||
| shutil.copy(fname, self.orig_dir) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line here does the trick to restore coverage of the missing add() function in the example below the fold when I install this feature branch locally:
Details
import os
import tempfile
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
def add(a, b):
return a + b
def probe_dispatcher():
orig_dir = os.getcwd()
with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as temp_dir:
os.chdir(temp_dir)
dispatcher()
os.chdir(orig_dir)
def dispatcher():
futures = []
with ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
futures.append(executor.submit(add, 2, 2))
for future in futures:
future.result()
if __name__ == "__main__":
probe_dispatcher()
whereas suppressing that shutil.copy() line restores the original bug:
While I can reproduce this lack of coverage with the new regression test I added here, I can't make that test pass on this feature branch at the moment... am I missing something about the meta testing/coverage testing harness?
| d = original_get_preparation_data(name) | ||
| d["stowaway"] = Stowaway(rcfile) | ||
| with open(".coverpath", "w", encoding="utf-8") as cpath: | ||
| cpath.write(d["orig_dir"]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels kind of bad... even more configuration/hacking via the multiprocessing monkeypatching, but it does seem to work as part of storing the original working directory for the originally described issue, so that .coverage. files may be copied back there.
| nprocs = 1 | ||
| upto = 30 | ||
| code = (MULTI_CODE_DIR_CHANGE).format(NPROCS=nprocs, UPTO=upto) | ||
| total = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
total is unused now since I'm not really wanting to write output from my sample test case... but perhaps more importantly I can't make this new regression test pass at the moment, despite the installed version of this feature branch doing the right thing for the reproducing external example as noted at https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy/pull/2069/files#r2446215263. Am I missing something about the meta-testing/test harness here?
1 participant
Fixes BUG: tmpdir directory context and ProcessPoolExecutor prevent tracing report #2065.
Add a regression test for the failure to collect
.coveragefiles when parent and child (concurrent.futures) processes have different directory contexts. This test fails for the expected reason it seems.Add a patch that fixes the problem described in the matching issue, but for some reason does not manage to restore the desired behavior in the regression test (something I'm not understanding about the "meta" testing?)