PR: Prefer a run-slow skip reason over an already passed one (Testing) #18768
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ccordoba12
changed the title
ccordoba12
changed the title
ccordoba12
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of Changes
Currently, on a subsequent test run,
conftest.pywill report the reason for skipping a "run-slow" test if--run-slowis not specified as "Test passed in previous runs", which is not true. This patch changes the order of the conditionals so that the "Need/Don't need --run-slow option to run" reason will be given precedence.Affirmation
By submitting this Pull Request or typing my (user)name below,
I affirm the Developer Certificate of Origin
with respect to all commits and content included in this PR,
and understand I am releasing the same under Spyder's MIT (Expat) license.
I certify the above statement is true and correct:
@juliangilbey