Skip to content

[TST] make xfails strict #22139

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 1, 2018
Merged

[TST] make xfails strict #22139

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 1, 2018

Conversation

jbrockmendel
Copy link
Member

This leaves untouched xfails with reasons like "flaky on 3.7" and a few where the test itself is just a pass.

In the process a handful of previously xfailed cases are no longer xfailed.

@@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ def test_custom_asserts(self):

class TestConstructors(BaseJSON, base.BaseConstructorsTests):

# TODO: Should this be pytest.mark.skip?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah u can change to skip (and similar ones)

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ def test_nulls(idx):
idx.isna()


@pytest.mark.xfail
@pytest.mark.xfail(strict=True)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can u add a reason

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, will try to sort that out. Also waiting to see if anything fails on the CI that passed locally.

@@ -212,7 +212,6 @@ def test_parallel_coordinates(self, iris):
with tm.assert_produces_warning(FutureWarning):
parallel_coordinates(df, 'Name', colors=colors)

@pytest.mark.xfail(reason="unreliable test")
def test_parallel_coordinates_with_sorted_labels(self):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hah!

@jreback jreback added the Testing pandas testing functions or related to the test suite label Jul 31, 2018
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 1, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #22139 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #22139      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.07%   92.06%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         170      170              
  Lines       50688    50689       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        46671    46669       -2     
- Misses       4017     4020       +3
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 90.47% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
#single 42.29% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/core/dtypes/common.py 94.87% <0%> (-0.34%) ⬇️
pandas/util/testing.py 85.69% <0%> (-0.21%) ⬇️
pandas/core/arrays/datetimes.py 95.44% <0%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
pandas/core/dtypes/dtypes.py 96.05% <0%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/period.py 93.5% <0%> (+0.1%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c272c52...67ab350. Read the comment docs.

@jreback jreback added this to the 0.24.0 milestone Aug 1, 2018
@jreback jreback merged commit 5d661c8 into pandas-dev:master Aug 1, 2018
@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Aug 1, 2018

thanks, ideally also update the contributing.rst docs where we use xfail as an example to include the strict param.

@jbrockmendel jbrockmendel deleted the strict branch August 1, 2018 15:43
dberenbaum pushed a commit to dberenbaum/pandas that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2018
Sup3rGeo pushed a commit to Sup3rGeo/pandas that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Testing pandas testing functions or related to the test suite
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants