Skip to content

ci: add backend unit tests to CI workflow#332

Closed
shivv23 wants to merge 1 commit intoc2siorg:mainfrom
shivv23:ci/backend-unit-tests-in-workflow
Closed

ci: add backend unit tests to CI workflow#332
shivv23 wants to merge 1 commit intoc2siorg:mainfrom
shivv23:ci/backend-unit-tests-in-workflow

Conversation

@shivv23
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@shivv23 shivv23 commented Apr 27, 2026

Summary

The CI integration-tests.yml workflow only ran integration tests, leaving the 162 backend unit tests in tensormap-backend/tests/ completely untested in CI. This PR splits the single integration-test job into two parallel jobs:

  • backend-unit-tests: Runs pytest tests/ against the backend unit test suite
  • integration-tests: Runs pytest ../tests/integration/ against the full integration suite

Changes

  • Renamed workflow from Integration Tests to Tests for accuracy
  • Added a dedicated backend-unit-tests job that runs uv run pytest tests/ -v --tb=short
  • Both jobs run in parallel on PRs to main with separate checkout/setup for clean environments

Validation

  • All 162 backend unit tests pass locally (162 passed in 2.54s)
  • No changes to application code — only CI workflow changes

Risk

  • Zero application code changes
  • CI-only change that adds test coverage
  • Both jobs run independently and in parallel

Files Changed

  • .github/workflows/integration-tests.yml — split into two parallel test jobs

Split the single integration-test job into two parallel jobs:
- backend-unit-tests: runs pytest against tensormap-backend/tests/
- integration-tests: runs pytest against tests/integration/

Both jobs run on PRs to main with separate checkout and setup steps
to ensure clean environments.
@shivv23
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

shivv23 commented Apr 27, 2026

Polluted with 10+ unrelated commits. Clean version coming.

@shivv23 shivv23 closed this Apr 27, 2026
@shivv23
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

shivv23 commented Apr 27, 2026

Hey @ivantha, I apologize for the confusion with these PRs. The issue was that my local Git state had a polluted index with uncommitted changes from other branches — when I created the branches from what I thought was a clean origin/main, those branches ended up containing 10+ unrelated commits from the stale branch history. Both PRs showed the same 10 commits (augment, export, interpret, compare, tune) because those commits exist in main's merge history.

I've since identified this and reset everything to a clean origin/main. I'm going to create fresh PRs with orphan branches — each containing exactly 1 commit with only its relevant files. They will have no shared commits and zero conflicts. Apologies for the noise!

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.

1 participant