GH-38752: [R] Wrap rosetta detection in tryCatch - #38754
Merged
assignUser merged 4 commits intoNov 17, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
assignUser
reviewed
Nov 16, 2023
assignUser
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks!
I think we also want to guard against an error in the function itself so the test can't fail either. We could use Sys.which to check for sysctl or also wrap in try(catch)
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Good catch on the test that would also fail there. I've added in tryCatch to the function itself |
Sorry, something went wrong.
assignUser
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2023
assignUser
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the quick fix!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 5 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit e543ee6. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 1 possible false positive for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
thisisnic
pushed a commit
to thisisnic/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 23, 2023
### Rationale for this change We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error ### What changes are included in this PR? ~Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch~ our use of `try()` wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have `silent = TRUE` specified to _not_ error. ### Are these changes tested? I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, though we will need to pull it into any point release * Closes: apache#38752 Authored-by: Jonathan Keane <jkeane@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
assignUser
pushed a commit
to thisisnic/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2023
### Rationale for this change We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error ### What changes are included in this PR? ~Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch~ our use of `try()` wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have `silent = TRUE` specified to _not_ error. ### Are these changes tested? I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, though we will need to pull it into any point release * Closes: apache#38752 Authored-by: Jonathan Keane <jkeane@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2023
### Rationale for this change We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error ### What changes are included in this PR? ~Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch~ our use of `try()` wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have `silent = TRUE` specified to _not_ error. ### Are these changes tested? I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, though we will need to pull it into any point release * Closes: #38752 Authored-by: Jonathan Keane <jkeane@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
assignUser
pushed a commit
to assignUser/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
### Rationale for this change We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error ### What changes are included in this PR? ~Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch~ our use of `try()` wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have `silent = TRUE` specified to _not_ error. ### Are these changes tested? I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, though we will need to pull it into any point release * Closes: apache#38752 Authored-by: Jonathan Keane <jkeane@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
dgreiss
pushed a commit
to dgreiss/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
### Rationale for this change We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error ### What changes are included in this PR? ~Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch~ our use of `try()` wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have `silent = TRUE` specified to _not_ error. ### Are these changes tested? I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, though we will need to pull it into any point release * Closes: apache#38752 Authored-by: Jonathan Keane <jkeane@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Reviewers
2 participants
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.
Rationale for this change
We should never allow rosetta checking from causing an error
What changes are included in this PR?
Wrap rosetta checking in a tryCatch our use of try() wasn't doing what we thought, it actually needs to have silent = TRUE specified to not error.
Are these changes tested?
I tested them locally by manipulating the system call to a mangled command that doesn't exist, observing the error on load, then wrapping in trycatch. We might consider adding a test in CI, though there would be considerable complexity for something like that
Are there any user-facing changes?
No, though we will need to pull it into any point release