Skip to content
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

Split the StandardTestData into UnitTestData and DocsTestData #39048

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2025

Conversation

peterfpeterson
Copy link
Member

@peterfpeterson peterfpeterson commented Mar 12, 2025

To help developers locally, this breaks down StandardData into UnitTestData and DocTestData and updates the various targets accordingly. This way people that want to build, for example, AlgorithmsTest don't have to wait for all of the data for doc tests as well. There is a missing dependency of docs-doctests on DocTestData which is added.

This will not affect build servers since they build everything.

There is no associated issue, but this is associated with EWM10160.

To test:

ninja clean && ninja MDAlgorithmsTest && ctest -R MDAlgorithmsTest

should link the appropriate test data and pass.


Reviewer

Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.

Code Review

  • Is the code of an acceptable quality?
  • Does the code conform to the coding standards?
  • Are the unit tests small and test the class in isolation?
  • If there is GUI work does it follow the GUI standards?
  • If there are changes in the release notes then do they describe the changes appropriately?
  • Do the release notes conform to the release notes guide?

Functional Tests

  • Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
  • Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
  • Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?

Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.

Gatekeeper

If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.

@peterfpeterson peterfpeterson added the Maintenance Unassigned issues to be addressed in the next maintenance period. label Mar 13, 2025
@peterfpeterson peterfpeterson added this to the Release 6.13 milestone Mar 13, 2025
@peterfpeterson peterfpeterson marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2025 15:26
@thomashampson thomashampson self-assigned this Mar 13, 2025
rboston628
rboston628 previously approved these changes Mar 13, 2025
@rboston628 rboston628 dismissed their stale review March 13, 2025 17:19

I didn't see the self-assign

Copy link
Contributor

@thomashampson thomashampson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is a sensible change. Since Reece also approved it I will act as gatekeeper.

@thomashampson thomashampson merged commit 67f2c68 into mantidproject:main Mar 13, 2025
10 checks passed
@peterfpeterson peterfpeterson deleted the less_testdata branch March 13, 2025 18:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Maintenance Unassigned issues to be addressed in the next maintenance period.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants