Skip to content

Conversation

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor

@hugolefeuvre hugolefeuvre commented Oct 6, 2025

FOR CONTRIBUTOR:

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document and this tool is appropriate for the tools-iuc repo.
  • License permits unrestricted use (educational + commercial)
  • This PR adds a new tool or tool collection
  • This PR updates an existing tool or tool collection
  • This PR does something else (explain below)

Closes: #7331

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR close this one : #7331

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @SaimMomin12, I see that you rerun test, any idea why it fails ? The error doesn't seem to come from the tool. Is it a wrapper or a galaxy error ?

@SaimMomin12
Copy link
Contributor

SaimMomin12 commented Oct 7, 2025

Hi @SaimMomin12, I see that you rerun test, any idea why it fails ? The error doesn't seem to come from the tool. Is it a wrapper or a galaxy error ?

No, unfortunately we are experiencing some CI issues lately. Nonetheless, we re-trigger the failed workflow manually :)

@SaimMomin12
Copy link
Contributor

I see the test timed out after 1800.25 seconds and failed. Let me loop in @bernt-matthias

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor

1800s is the max runtime of a test allowed in our CI. any way to speed things up?

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor Author

hugolefeuvre commented Oct 7, 2025

1800s is the max runtime of a test allowed in our CI. any way to speed things up?

I'm not sure it's possible to speed things up. The three tests involve three different databases, and the last one, which concerns Enterobase, only has two possible values, and the one that was tested is the smallest. Maybe we can delete this one? The parameters used are the same as for the other databases.

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Currently, we have no way of speeding things up, so we can suggest removing this test, or perhaps it is possible to extend run time for CI ?

Copy link
Contributor

@bernt-matthias bernt-matthias left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hrm. Don't know how to continue. Maybe mock a test?

@hugolefeuvre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hrm. Don't know how to continue. Maybe mock a test?

I remove the test that fail because of time limit, I use bash variables for token and secrets parameters (but I'm not sure I wrote or use them well), and I added a conditional to distinguish token and non token generated databases.

Comment on lines 42 to 45
-k ${CONSUMER_TOKEN}
-ks ${CONSUMER_SECRET}
-a ${ACCESS_TOKEN}
-as ${ACCESS_SECRET}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Those are not bash variables. Should be "$CONSUMER_TOKEN". I would make them less generic, maybe "$COREPROFILER_CONSUMER_TOKEN".

Might be cool to add a bash if statement checking if they are set if needed and output a helpful error message if needed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the feedback, I'll make the necessary changes.

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.

3 participants