Skip to content

ARROW-16374: [R] [C++] skip another snappy test during sanitizer runs #13014

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
jonkeane wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

ARROW-16374: [R] [C++] skip another snappy test during sanitizer runs #13014

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions r/tests/testthat/test-parquet.R
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -197,6 +197,8 @@ test_that("Maps are preserved when writing/reading from Parquet", {
})

test_that("read_parquet() and write_parquet() accept connection objects", {
skip_if_not_available("snappy")
Copy link
Member

@nealrichardson nealrichardson Apr 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The other way to do this would be to specify no compression in write_parquet(). That plus a comment explaining why is probably clearer since skip_if_not_available("snappy") isn't actually what's happening (snappy is available in the build but the function still skips on linux devel to avoid sanitizers)

Copy link
Member Author

@jonkeane jonkeane Apr 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I've been thinking about how may of these we need + it would be great if we actually tested this with our default and then fell back on sanitizers only. Either compression should be totally fine, but it would be nice to have coverage on both. But we should do that generally. I'll make a Jira for that + we can do that outside of the release pressure.

Copy link
Member Author

@jonkeane jonkeane Apr 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-16385


tf <- tempfile()
on.exit(unlink(tf))

Expand Down