Skip to content

test parsing and summarisation of outputs (no errors only)#253

Merged
Andrew Coughtrie (andrewcoughtrie) merged 3 commits into
MetOffice:mainfrom
mo-marqh:testParsingOutput
Jun 12, 2026
Merged

test parsing and summarisation of outputs (no errors only)#253
Andrew Coughtrie (andrewcoughtrie) merged 3 commits into
MetOffice:mainfrom
mo-marqh:testParsingOutput

Conversation

@mo-marqh

@mo-marqh mo-marqh commented May 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

Some updates to the Github actions workflows, avoiding warnings for old actions/checkout versions and adding testing of output parsing and summarisation to the matrix of tests

Linked issues

Closes # (issue)

Type of change

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • This change requires a documentation update

How has this been tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • New tests have been added
  • Tests have been modified to accommodate this change

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes, for both debug and optimised builds

@mo-marqh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm seeing sporadic action runner test failures unrelated to this change, that succeed on re-trigger.

I'm assuming there are some synchronisation issues in test running outstanding not related to this change

@mo-marqh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

i have only added the running of the summarise-vernier executable.
So, these tests will only fail if that tool raises an exception.

Do you think it's vital that we add correctness checking to these tests, beyond no errors?
I'm a bit unsure about how to do this without making fragile tests that fail too often, but i'm happy to try

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just one query but otherwise I'd say it's a good enough test for now to make sure the script at least runs.

Comment thread .github/workflows/build.yml Outdated
python -m pip install .[dev]
- name: summarise Vernier outputs
run: |
find ${{github.workspace}}/build/tests/system_tests -name *vernier-output* -exec echo {} \; -exec summarise-vernier {} \;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Running this command locally I needed to put quotes around *vernier-output* otherwise I get the error

find: paths must precede expression: `drhook-vernier-output-1'
find: possible unquoted pattern after predicate `-name'?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

always happy to be more explicit with find syntax

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All good now

@andrewcoughtrie
Andrew Coughtrie (andrewcoughtrie) merged commit dbb4575 into MetOffice:main Jun 12, 2026
12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants