Skip to content

Conversation

@enwask
Copy link
Contributor

@enwask enwask commented Jun 3, 2025

There is a regression in pytest 8.4 from the undocumented removal of PytestReturnNotNoneWarning, which was previously ignored in CI via pytest.ini. This PR just removes the line that ignores that warning.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 3, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.59%. Comparing base (1119a63) to head (a2f3b41).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2623      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.99%   87.59%   -4.41%     
==========================================
  Files         245      245              
  Lines       48495    48495              
  Branches     4261     4261              
==========================================
- Hits        44612    42477    -2135     
- Misses       3202     5297    +2095     
- Partials      681      721      +40     
Flag Coverage Δ
pytest-gpu-aomp-amdgpuX ?
pytest-gpu-nvc-nvidiaX ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ggorman ggorman requested a review from Copilot June 4, 2025 06:50
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

The purpose of this PR is to fix a pytest regression by removing the now-irrelevant ignore flag for PytestReturnNotNoneWarning from the CI configuration.

  • Removed the line ignoring PytestReturnNotNoneWarning in pytest.ini to align with pytest 8.4 changes.

Copy link
Contributor

@EdCaunt EdCaunt 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 it might be better to have an if-else structure which checks the PyTest version so it doesn't trip users up if they have a mismatched version

@enwask
Copy link
Contributor Author

enwask commented Jun 4, 2025

I think it might be better to have an if-else structure which checks the PyTest version so it doesn't trip users up if they have a mismatched version

Well checks passing indicates that there aren't any tests returning non-None, so shouldn't be an issue (i.e. if this warning would come up in any prior version, then tests on the current version would fail). I imagine the warning was ignored for historical reasons and then never removed when tests were changed to not actually issue that warning

@mloubout mloubout added dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file CI continuous integration labels Jun 4, 2025
@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

mloubout commented Jun 4, 2025

Need to update the bound on pytest in requirements-testing.txt so it catches the new version with dependabot.

Well checks passing indicates that there aren't any tests returning non-None

Can we be extra safe, enforce <8.4 (reqs above) for this PR to make sure of it, and if tests pass, update to. <8.5. From a quick search, we only have a few tests with an actual return statement, and they all return None, so it should be safe, but you never know with pytest.

@enwask
Copy link
Contributor Author

enwask commented Jun 4, 2025

All checks passing with pytest<8.4, will set the bound back to <8.5 and should be good for merge?

@mloubout mloubout merged commit 8fa28c3 into devitocodes:main Jun 5, 2025
31 checks passed
mloubout added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CI continuous integration dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants