Update full_result.json #858
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Summary: Unfortunately we still don't get flake8 errors on unused imports internally, so I introduced a few of these when I was fixing broken unit tests in github CI. This should make the lint signal clean, so that on github only the `pyre` and `pysa` signals will be red (they have been broken for a while, I'll try to fix them but that will be in separate diffs). Reviewed By: alexkassil Differential Revision: D57386423
Summary: The dataclasses-json version we are getting in github has types that are incompatible with the internal version. As a result, we need to pin the version on github to get comparable results (in addition it's at least possible we would get bugs in open-source without pinning). I filed T189226004 to bump the version internally. In addition: - we aren't marking `toml` as a dependency, but we need it as a dev dependency because type checking the typeshed patcher requires it - we need to list both tabulate and toml in our .pyre_configuration for github to pick them up because we are still using the legacy setup where packages aren't picked up by default... this would probably be good to change at some point. Reviewed By: arthaud Differential Revision: D57387918
Summary: The dataclasses-json version we are getting in github has types that are incompatible with the internal version. As a result, we need to pin the version on github to get comparable results (in addition it's at least possible we would get bugs in open-source without pinning). I filed T189226004 to bump the version internally. In addition: - we aren't marking `toml` as a dependency, but we need it as a dev dependency because type checking the typeshed patcher requires it - we need to list both tabulate and toml in our .pyre_configuration for github to pick them up because we are still using the legacy setup where packages aren't picked up by default... this would probably be good to change at some point. Differential Revision: D57433947
Summary: This updates to what we are currently seeing in the integration tests. There is a regression here: we don't seem to be resolving werkzeug.utils.redirect properly; Maxime was able to verify that reveal_type(redirect) comes back as `unknown`. It's likely that this is either Pyre not finding the package due to some configuration handling change, or a signature extraction issue. I filed T189346515 to investigate, but it seems wise to make CI pass in the meantime so that we'll notice the next regression quicker. Differential Revision: D57437213
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D57437213 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
This updates to what we are currently seeing in the integration tests.
There is a regression here: we don't seem to be resolving
werkzeug.utils.redirect properly; Maxime was able to verify that
reveal_type(redirect) comes back as
unknown.It's likely that this is either Pyre not finding the package due to some
configuration handling change, or a signature extraction issue.
I filed T189346515 to investigate, but it seems wise to make CI pass
in the meantime so that we'll notice the next regression quicker.
Differential Revision: D57437213