-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
Replace deprecated runners in CI #1254
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
Conversation
I'm not quite sure why we have a bloodbath from Boost.Exception now. The file that's popping up as an error hasn't been modified in over 2 years. |
We must have a test that has off and is - possibly indirectly - pulling in Boost.Exception. I don't see it at present though. |
I think it's coming up as a secondary dependency from Boost.Container since the failure looks like:
|
test_instantiate is a compile-only test, it shouldn't be building any dependencies IMO. |
Should this be changed to compile then?
In the no-exception handling runs everything fails so that only kind of helps? Edit: Locally this works fine |
You're correct: the build log clearly shows that test_instantiate is the culprit, BUT it passes locally for me, and the Jamfile clearly shows no dependencies at all for that target, and certainly no mention of Boost.Exception being required. For that matter Boost.Exception (the library) is absolutely NOT a dependency, only the stub header. So I'm confused right now. |
Reproduced locally. |
The dependency is introduced by Boost.Test which isn't used by that target, I nearly have a fix that I'm testing locally... |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1254 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 93.83% 93.83%
========================================
Files 657 657
Lines 55244 55244
========================================
Hits 51840 51840
Misses 3404 3404
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
OK this looks good to go, only failures are from cycl Cauchy tests. I'll let @mborland look at those. |
No description provided.