-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
[Test Failure] Swig RunPlan != can't compare with None? #1233
Comments
Tbh the actual test looks a bit janky, it should probably just be a test that runplan constructor doesn't throw an exception, this equivalence doesn't really match the new/delete behaviour of the C test. Though arguably, I'd prefer swig to detect when a class of wrong type or |
Can confirm this error is occuring under linux too, with Python 3.10 and Swig 4.2.1, however a local build using Swig 4.0.2 passess these tests successfully, implying it might be a change in swig? From users writing python, it should be possibel to compare to The rc1 wheels from our wheel house which were built with 4.0.2 also still pass the test. |
Swig 4.3.0 Test passes (skipped test is operator+, test that should fail is constructor). But there's some new deprecation warnings. (Related SWIG issue swig/swig#2881, though this states it was present in 4.2.x?)
|
swig/swig#2987 seems like the relevant issue discussion showing the behaviour we observed, which is now fixed in 4.3.0 (confirmed on linux too). Changing my non-idiomatic python from (also needs fixing in I did also see the no From that thread it should only be visible to users if they invoke python with We could prevent our pytest suite from reporting these via a configuration file, equivalent to |
Bah, i was searching |
Couple of Python test failures (debug/windows) whilst investigating the SWIG 4.2.1 issue, note this is with the Python wheel built with SWIG 4.2.1. Although, I've built it with 4.0.2 and received the same failures.
Not immediately clear their cause, these weren't touched in the recent bugfix so that's a coincidence.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: