[SPARK-54545][INFRA] Allow test case pattern for run-tests #53254
+15
−1
Conversation
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
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2025
| try: | ||
| args = test_name.split() | ||
| if len(args) == 2: | ||
| args.insert(1, "-k") |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why insert -k here?
I usually explicitly add -k if needed
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's more like a syntax sugar. Not many people are aware of the existence of -k - we also never mention it in our docs. It's not clear that we are passing the arguments to unittest.main.
The whole purpose of this is to make it easier for people to run an individual test, in an intuitive way.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Allow test name patterns in
run-tests.Why are the changes needed?
Looking for the actual TestClass for a specific test is not trivial - because we are using Mixin pattern. The class where the test method is defined in is not the actual unittest class we run. This makes specifying a test case very difficult.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Manually comfirmed that pattern works.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No