Skip to content

Comments

r.regression.multi: Add test file#6066

Merged
petrasovaa merged 2 commits intoOSGeo:mainfrom
NishantBansal2003:test/r-regression-multi
Jul 17, 2025
Merged

r.regression.multi: Add test file#6066
petrasovaa merged 2 commits intoOSGeo:mainfrom
NishantBansal2003:test/r-regression-multi

Conversation

@NishantBansal2003
Copy link
Contributor

ref: #6010

This PR adds a regression test suite for the r.regression.multi module. These tests are intended to serve as regression checks for upcoming PRs that add JSON support to r.regression.multi.

@github-actions github-actions bot added raster Related to raster data processing Python Related code is in Python module tests Related to Test Suite labels Jul 15, 2025
@petrasovaa
Copy link
Contributor

@echoix do you know what's up with the crlf action?

@echoix echoix closed this in #6070 Jul 17, 2025
echoix added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2025
…6070)

Simplified and adapted from  #4792.
Fixes #6066 (comment)

The action that checks for CRLF has been failing since at least this weekend.
Considering that that action has low chances of beeing fixed in a timely matter, I replaced the functionality with an .editorconfig file and validating against it with editorconfig-checker. Compared to #4792, here I don’t attempt to make the line ending changes persist in the repo through .gitattributes, and ignore a bit more of non-ready config sections (since the functionality replaced was less detailed than what the .editorconfig I already had almost working).


I made the pre-commit run always, and made it faster in consequence to not add a big impact. With hot cache, it is taking 1min-1min10, which is about the same. I knew pre-commit could be faster in CI as I already saw how fast it was in ruff’s own CI when submitting one of my PRs there once. It can still be a bit faster, but it’s enough for today.

* CQ: Add initial .editorconfig file with basic settings

* CI: Add EditorConfig validation to super-linter workflow

* CI: Remove CRLF check from additional_checks.yml workflow

* CQ: Add editorconfig-checker to pre-commit config

* CI: Always run pre-commit in CI

* Update .editorconfig with new whitespace settings for mswindows

* CI: Run pre-commit step with uvx

* CI: Add caching for pre-commit checks in workflow

* Update .editorconfig for Windows batch files

* CI: Remove paths-filter step from additional_checks.yml

* Update additional_checks.yml step setup-uv
@petrasovaa petrasovaa reopened this Jul 17, 2025
@petrasovaa petrasovaa enabled auto-merge (squash) July 17, 2025 09:42
@petrasovaa petrasovaa moved this to In Progress in GRASS JSON Outputs Jul 17, 2025
@petrasovaa petrasovaa merged commit dc579ff into OSGeo:main Jul 17, 2025
27 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in GRASS JSON Outputs Jul 17, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 8.5.0 milestone Jul 17, 2025
echoix added a commit to echoix/grass that referenced this pull request Sep 21, 2025
…SGeo#6070)

Simplified and adapted from  OSGeo#4792.
Fixes OSGeo#6066 (comment)

The action that checks for CRLF has been failing since at least this weekend.
Considering that that action has low chances of beeing fixed in a timely matter, I replaced the functionality with an .editorconfig file and validating against it with editorconfig-checker. Compared to OSGeo#4792, here I don’t attempt to make the line ending changes persist in the repo through .gitattributes, and ignore a bit more of non-ready config sections (since the functionality replaced was less detailed than what the .editorconfig I already had almost working).

I made the pre-commit run always, and made it faster in consequence to not add a big impact. With hot cache, it is taking 1min-1min10, which is about the same. I knew pre-commit could be faster in CI as I already saw how fast it was in ruff’s own CI when submitting one of my PRs there once. It can still be a bit faster, but it’s enough for today.

* CQ: Add initial .editorconfig file with basic settings

* CI: Add EditorConfig validation to super-linter workflow

* CI: Remove CRLF check from additional_checks.yml workflow

* CQ: Add editorconfig-checker to pre-commit config

* CI: Always run pre-commit in CI

* Update .editorconfig with new whitespace settings for mswindows

* CI: Run pre-commit step with uvx

* CI: Add caching for pre-commit checks in workflow

* Update .editorconfig for Windows batch files

* CI: Remove paths-filter step from additional_checks.yml

* Update additional_checks.yml step setup-uv
echoix added a commit to echoix/grass that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2025
…SGeo#6070)

Simplified and adapted from  OSGeo#4792.
Fixes OSGeo#6066 (comment)

The action that checks for CRLF has been failing since at least this weekend.
Considering that that action has low chances of beeing fixed in a timely matter, I replaced the functionality with an .editorconfig file and validating against it with editorconfig-checker. Compared to OSGeo#4792, here I don’t attempt to make the line ending changes persist in the repo through .gitattributes, and ignore a bit more of non-ready config sections (since the functionality replaced was less detailed than what the .editorconfig I already had almost working).

I made the pre-commit run always, and made it faster in consequence to not add a big impact. With hot cache, it is taking 1min-1min10, which is about the same. I knew pre-commit could be faster in CI as I already saw how fast it was in ruff’s own CI when submitting one of my PRs there once. It can still be a bit faster, but it’s enough for today.

* CQ: Add initial .editorconfig file with basic settings

* CI: Add EditorConfig validation to super-linter workflow

* CI: Remove CRLF check from additional_checks.yml workflow

* CQ: Add editorconfig-checker to pre-commit config

* CI: Always run pre-commit in CI

* Update .editorconfig with new whitespace settings for mswindows

* CI: Run pre-commit step with uvx

* CI: Add caching for pre-commit checks in workflow

* Update .editorconfig for Windows batch files

* CI: Remove paths-filter step from additional_checks.yml

* Update additional_checks.yml step setup-uv
echoix added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2025
…6070)

Simplified and adapted from  #4792.
Fixes #6066 (comment)

The action that checks for CRLF has been failing since at least this weekend.
Considering that that action has low chances of beeing fixed in a timely matter, I replaced the functionality with an .editorconfig file and validating against it with editorconfig-checker. Compared to #4792, here I don’t attempt to make the line ending changes persist in the repo through .gitattributes, and ignore a bit more of non-ready config sections (since the functionality replaced was less detailed than what the .editorconfig I already had almost working).

I made the pre-commit run always, and made it faster in consequence to not add a big impact. With hot cache, it is taking 1min-1min10, which is about the same. I knew pre-commit could be faster in CI as I already saw how fast it was in ruff’s own CI when submitting one of my PRs there once. It can still be a bit faster, but it’s enough for today.

* CQ: Add initial .editorconfig file with basic settings

* CI: Add EditorConfig validation to super-linter workflow

* CI: Remove CRLF check from additional_checks.yml workflow

* CQ: Add editorconfig-checker to pre-commit config

* CI: Always run pre-commit in CI

* Update .editorconfig with new whitespace settings for mswindows

* CI: Run pre-commit step with uvx

* CI: Add caching for pre-commit checks in workflow

* Update .editorconfig for Windows batch files

* CI: Remove paths-filter step from additional_checks.yml

* Update additional_checks.yml step setup-uv
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

module Python Related code is in Python raster Related to raster data processing tests Related to Test Suite

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants