Skip to content

Conversation

@timholy
Copy link
Owner

@timholy timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

This fixes #263 and also updates to JuliaInterpreter 0.4. Also addresses the TODO item in #258 and fixes a missed aspect of #254.

CC @essenciary

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #265 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #265   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage       0%     0%           
=====================================
  Files          11     11           
  Lines        1089   1090    +1     
=====================================
- Misses       1089   1090    +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/lowered.jl 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
src/Revise.jl 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
src/pkgs.jl 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f744f86...aec210b. Read the comment docs.

@timholy
Copy link
Owner Author

timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

Already part of this PR?

@timholy
Copy link
Owner Author

timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

Hmm, the OSX failure on 1.0 is worrisome. I don't have a suitable machine for testing, anyone out there willing to debug it?

@KristofferC
Copy link
Collaborator

KristofferC commented Apr 2, 2019

Sorry, I deleted my comment after I realized I missed that it had already been done.

For reference: It said that JuliaInterpreter upper bound in REQUIRE needed bumping

@timholy
Copy link
Owner Author

timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

Hmm, the OSX failure on 1.0 is worrisome.

Ah, it seems intermittent. I was worried because it happened on both instances, but I reran one of them and it's passing. So I'll merge this as-is; anyone willing to help understand what makes it flaky would have my gratitude.

@timholy timholy merged commit 0a88466 into master Apr 2, 2019
@timholy timholy deleted the teh/fix_263 branch April 2, 2019 15:05
@KristofferC
Copy link
Collaborator

KristofferC commented Apr 2, 2019

Passed locally on macOS with:

┌ Warning: /Applications/Julia-1.0.app/Contents/Resources/julia/share/julia/base_functions.jl is not a file, omitting from revision tracking
└ @ Revise ~/.julia/packages/Revise/OcHNd/src/parsing.jl:24
┌ Warning: Failed to revise /Applications/Julia-1.0.app/Contents/Resources/julia/share/julia/base/../base_functions.jl: MethodError(convert, (OrderedCollections.OrderedDict{Module,OrderedCollections.OrderedDict{Revise.RelocatableExpr,Union{Nothing, Array{Any,1}}}}, nothing), 0x000000000000639b)
└ @ Revise ~/.julia/packages/Revise/OcHNd/src/Revise.jl:539
┌ Warning: skipping git tests because Revise is not under development
└ @ Main ~/.julia/packages/Revise/OcHNd/test/runtests.jl:1546

...

┌ Warning: /Applications/Julia-1.0.app/Contents/Resources/julia/share/julia/stdlib/v1.0/REPLMode.jl is not a file, omitting from revision tracking
└ @ Revise ~/.julia/packages/Revise/OcHNd/src/parsing.jl:24
┌ Warning: Failed to revise /Applications/Julia-1.0.app/Contents/Resources/julia/share/julia/stdlib/v1.0/REPL/../REPLMode.jl: MethodError(convert, (OrderedCollections.OrderedDict{Module,OrderedCollections.OrderedDict{Revise.RelocatableExpr,Union{Nothing, Array{Any,1}}}}, nothing), 0x00000000000063d9)

...

	┌ Warning: Replacing docs for `LibGit2.Consts.GIT_CONFIG :: Union{}` in module `LibGit2.Consts`

@timholy
Copy link
Owner Author

timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

Does it always pass if you run it several times? (You have to exit the session and start again, all the modules are already defined so you need to start fresh.)

@KristofferC
Copy link
Collaborator

Passed 3 times in a row at least.

@timholy
Copy link
Owner Author

timholy commented Apr 2, 2019

OK, thanks for checking! I'll pass it off as an oddity of Travis. I am pretty sure I've seen this specific failure on other PRs, but this is the first time it failed on both instances.

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.

Revise.track reincludes the file (2.0.4 vs 1.1.0)

3 participants