Fix issue when PATH is missing in os.environ #3146
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Not sure why the checks fail. I ran the pre-commit hooks and they all passed. |
abn
approved these changes
Oct 8, 2020
|
@exhuma jfyi |
This was referenced Oct 9, 2020
Closed
|
Done in #3159 |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Pull Request Check List
Resolves: #3144
I'm not really sure any of the two check-boxes apply for this change. Is the effort of preparing
os.environfor the unit-test really worth the effort? Considering that this might interfere with other tests, so it needs to be mocked or patched. I feel that all this effort for this small change is a bit over-the-top. The call itself (and thus a runtime syntax-error) is already covered by existing tests.If you disagree, let me know and I will add the required test.
As for documentation, as this is an internal change not externally visible I don't think it warrants docs. Again, let me know if you disagree.
And finally, I decided to target
masterinstead ofdevelopfor this PR because it is a bugfix on the current released version. But that's anyway something you can modify yourself 😉