Open squakez opened 3 years ago
This issue has been automatically marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 15 days. If you think that’s incorrect or the issue should never stale, please simply write any comment. Thanks for your contributions!
Looks like the test was already fixed, the Go build tag can be released now: https://github.com/apache/camel-k/pull/5380
Looks like the test was already fixed, the Go build tag can be released now: #5380
Thanks for having a look. However I think the main problem of this test was the failure on Windows OS where it is still disabled.
Thanks for having a look. However I think the main problem of this test was the failure on Windows OS where it is still disabled.
Hello, not sure if I follow. Isn’t this tested now in the test code itself?
if isWindows() {
t.Skip("Test not reliably producing a result on a windows OS")
}
Thanks for having a look. However I think the main problem of this test was the failure on Windows OS where it is still disabled.
Hello, not sure if I follow. Isn’t this tested now in the test code itself?
if isWindows() { t.Skip("Test not reliably producing a result on a windows OS") }
No, the test is skipped when the build is running in a Windows machine. The idea of this issue is to rework the test in order to allow it running regardless the operating system.
Oh I see, well, I do not have a Windows system here. Let’s keep it opened then, thanks.
Yeah, I think the problem is caused by how the CI is building the application. The best approach is indeed to work on improving the test in order to make it OS agnostic by creating a file and setting some privilege to deny access. I created it some time ago and I did not consider the impact on other systems that can build the application.
I am opening a follow up issue to work on such improvement, in the while, we may even remove/comment the test in order to fix the problem described there.
Originally posted by @squakez in https://github.com/apache/camel-k/issues/2561#issuecomment-896015636