Skip to content
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

Remove all "labels"-related code #782

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Remove all "labels"-related code #782

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Swatinem
Copy link
Contributor

The concepts of labels, labels_index and datapoints are all related to the defunct ATS (automatic test selection) product which was never adopted.

This PR starts out by removing the label_index feature, and then progressively removes all labels related code, along with never writing out new datapoints.

It turns out this feature flag was never fully rolled out, and is part of ATS (automated test selection) which was also not fully launched.

This will now remove this feature flag, as a precursor to removing labels altogether.
@Swatinem Swatinem requested a review from a team October 14, 2024 11:42
@Swatinem Swatinem self-assigned this Oct 14, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.98%. Comparing base (2973343) to head (78671e3).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #782      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.03%   97.98%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         440      431       -9     
  Lines       36566    34955    -1611     
==========================================
- Hits        35846    34252    -1594     
+ Misses        720      703      -17     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
unit 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
NonTestCode 95.84% <100.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
OutsideTasks 97.99% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
rollouts/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/__init__.py 97.19% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/pycoverage.py 95.23% <100.00%> (-2.95%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/tests/unit/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ces/report/languages/tests/unit/test_pycoverage.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/raw_upload_processor.py 100.00% <100.00%> (+4.24%) ⬆️
services/report/report_builder.py 98.07% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_process.py 99.06% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_report_builder.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
services/report/tests/unit/test_sessions.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

@codecov-staging
Copy link

codecov-staging bot commented Oct 14, 2024

❌ 2 Tests Failed:

Tests completed Failed Passed Skipped
1608 2 1606 0
View the top 2 failed tests by shortest run time
services.report.tests.unit.test_process.TestProcessRawUploadCarryforwardFlags test_process_raw_upload_with_carryforwarded_flags
Stack Traces | 0.032s run time
self = &lt;test_process.TestProcessRawUploadCarryforwardFlags object at 0x7fe99f0ef500&gt;

    def test_process_raw_upload_with_carryforwarded_flags(self):
        original_report = self._generate_sample_report()
        upload_flags = ["somethingold", "flag_two"]
        raw_content = dumps(
            {
                "coverage": {
                    "another.c": [None, 3, "1/2"],
                    "tests/test.py": [None, 0],
                    "folder/file.py": [None, 1],
                }
            }
        )
        uploaded_reports = LegacyParsedRawReport(
            toc=None,
            env=None,
            report_fixes=None,
            uploaded_files=[
                ParsedUploadedReportFile(
                    filename=".../path/to/app.coverage.json",
                    file_contents=BytesIO(raw_content.encode()),
                ),
            ],
        )
        session = Session(flags=upload_flags)
        result = process.process_raw_upload(
            UserYaml(
                {
                    "flag_management": {
                        "individual_flags": [
                            {"name": "somethingold", "carryforward": True}
                        ]
                    }
                }
            ),
            original_report,
            uploaded_reports,
            ["somethingold", "flag_two"],
            session=session,
        )
        report = result.report
&gt;       assert result.session_adjustment.fully_deleted_sessions == [1]
E       AttributeError: 'UploadProcessingResult' object has no attribute 'session_adjustment'

.../tests/unit/test_process.py:1112: AttributeError
services.tests.test_report.TestReportService test_get_existing_report_for_commit_already_carriedforward_add_sessions
Stack Traces | 0.052s run time
self = &lt;worker.services.tests.test_report.TestReportService object at 0x7fe99e697ec0&gt;
dbsession = &lt;sqlalchemy.orm.session.Session object at 0x7fe9887e23f0&gt;
sample_commit_with_report_big_already_carriedforward = Commit&lt;28fb6fad178e650bdc4eefef022f241223b92d54@repo&lt;524&gt;&gt;

    def test_get_existing_report_for_commit_already_carriedforward_add_sessions(
        self, dbsession, sample_commit_with_report_big_already_carriedforward
    ):
        commit = sample_commit_with_report_big_already_carriedforward
        dbsession.add(commit)
        dbsession.flush()
        yaml_dict = {"flags": {"enterprise": {"carryforward": True}}}
        report = ReportService(UserYaml(yaml_dict)).get_existing_report_for_commit(
            commit
        )
        assert report is not None
        assert len(report.files) == 15
        assert sorted(report.sessions.keys()) == [0, 1, 2, 3]
        first_to_merge_session = Session(flags=["enterprise"])
        report.add_session(first_to_merge_session)
        assert sorted(report.sessions.keys()) == [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
        assert clear_carryforward_sessions(
            report, ["enterprise"], UserYaml(yaml_dict)
        ) == {2, 3}
        assert sorted(report.sessions.keys()) == [0, 1, 4]
        readable_report = self.convert_report_to_better_readable(report)
        expected_sessions_dict = {
            "0": {
                "N": None,
                "a": None,
                "c": None,
                "d": None,
                "e": None,
                "f": None,
                "j": None,
                "n": None,
                "p": None,
                "st": "uploaded",
                "se": {},
                "t": None,
                "u": None,
            },
            "1": {
                "N": None,
                "a": None,
                "c": None,
                "d": None,
                "e": None,
                "f": ["unit"],
                "j": None,
                "n": None,
                "p": None,
                "st": "uploaded",
                "se": {},
                "t": None,
                "u": None,
            },
            "4": {
                "N": None,
                "a": None,
                "c": None,
                "d": None,
                "e": None,
                "f": ["enterprise"],
                "j": None,
                "n": None,
                "p": None,
                "st": "uploaded",
                "se": {},
                "t": None,
                "u": None,
            },
        }
        assert readable_report["report"]["sessions"]["0"] == expected_sessions_dict["0"]
        assert readable_report["report"]["sessions"]["1"] == expected_sessions_dict["1"]
        assert readable_report["report"]["sessions"]["4"] == expected_sessions_dict["4"]
        assert readable_report["report"]["sessions"] == expected_sessions_dict
        newly_added_session = {
            "N": None,
            "a": None,
            "c": None,
            "d": None,
            "e": None,
            "f": ["unit"],
            "j": None,
            "n": None,
            "p": None,
            "st": "uploaded",
            "se": {},
            "t": None,
            "u": None,
        }
        second_to_merge_session = Session(flags=["unit"])
        report.add_session(second_to_merge_session)
        assert sorted(report.sessions.keys()) == [0, 1, 3, 4]
&gt;       assert clear_carryforward_sessions(report, ["unit"], UserYaml(yaml_dict)) == {}
E       assert set() == {}
E         
E         Use -v to get more diff

services/tests/test_report.py:1566: AssertionError

To view individual test run time comparison to the main branch, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard

@codecov-qa
Copy link

codecov-qa bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.98%. Comparing base (2973343) to head (78671e3).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #782      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.03%   97.98%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         440      431       -9     
  Lines       36566    34955    -1611     
==========================================
- Hits        35846    34252    -1594     
+ Misses        720      703      -17     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
unit 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
NonTestCode 95.84% <100.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
OutsideTasks 97.99% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
rollouts/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/__init__.py 97.19% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/pycoverage.py 95.23% <100.00%> (-2.95%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/tests/unit/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ces/report/languages/tests/unit/test_pycoverage.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/raw_upload_processor.py 100.00% <100.00%> (+4.24%) ⬆️
services/report/report_builder.py 98.07% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_process.py 99.06% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_report_builder.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
services/report/tests/unit/test_sessions.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link

codecov-public-qa bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.98%. Comparing base (2973343) to head (78671e3).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #782      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.03%   97.98%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         440      431       -9     
  Lines       36566    34955    -1611     
==========================================
- Hits        35846    34252    -1594     
+ Misses        720      703      -17     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
unit 97.98% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
NonTestCode 95.84% <100.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
OutsideTasks 97.99% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Files Coverage Δ
rollouts/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/__init__.py 97.19% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/pycoverage.py 95.23% <100.00%> (-2.95%) ⬇️
services/report/languages/tests/unit/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ces/report/languages/tests/unit/test_pycoverage.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
services/report/raw_upload_processor.py 100.00% <100.00%> (+4.24%) ⬆️
services/report/report_builder.py 98.07% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_process.py 99.06% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
services/report/tests/unit/test_report_builder.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
services/report/tests/unit/test_sessions.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

@Swatinem Swatinem marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2024 12:53
Copy link
Contributor

@giovanni-guidini giovanni-guidini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

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.

2 participants