Migrate from XCTest to Swift Testing #229
Conversation
mattt
force-pushed
the
mattt/swift-testing
branch
from
3135ab1 to
d448cfa
Compare
mattt
force-pushed
the
mattt/swift-testing
branch
2 times, most recently
from
80245da to
a1f455d
Compare
Fix race condition in moveDownloadedFile Pass hubApiForTests to AutoTokenizer.from calls Consolidate BERT uncased tests Conditionalize integration tests on HF_TOKEN
This reverts commit 63eef12b1f3899a89dd7e0e376687fefd2f3f091.
mattt
force-pushed
the
mattt/swift-testing
branch
from
a1f455d to
2ff616f
Compare
mattt
force-pushed
the
mattt/swift-testing
branch
from
3c181ca to
6b95a5d
Compare
… conditions in tests
…avoid race conditions in tests
| XCTFail("Unexpected error: \(error)", file: file, line: line) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Check if two floating-point arrays are equal within a given accuracy | ||
| func isClose<T: FloatingPoint>(_ lhs: [T], _ rhs: [T], accuracy: T) -> Bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice. This could become a general utility function later, like Pytorch or MLX allClose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that would be nice. Official guidance from the Swift team for replacing the XCTest assertion with accuracy is to pull in swift-numerics to use their implementation of isApproximatelyEqual. Pulling that in as a separate dependency just for tests is overkill, but we could certainly vendor it.
Ah, I see they work now! |
Yes, that's the race conditions I was mentioning before. There's a more comprehensive change we can do to make that reentrancy safe, but for now it's much easier to ensure that we don't have more than one test calling |
|
Ooh, nice — after making everything parallel again, we're now down to 3 minutes 40 seconds 🚀 |
2 participants
This PR migrates most of our tests from XCTest to the new Swift Testing framework, which has better ergonomics and performance.