Honor custom GameLibs path in settings validation - #133
Merged
Conversation
Owner
Author
|
CI gate summary before merge:
I am treating those four red push checks as inherited baseline failures, not a regression in this isolated validator fix. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
settings_menu_coverage.pyhonorOPENQ4_GAMELIBS_REPO, matching the validation runner and the rest of the GameLib-aware testsWhy
The test silently hardcoded the sibling
../openQ4-gamecheckout. A caller usingopenq4_validate.py --game-libs-repo ...could therefore validate settings against the wrong GameLib revision even though the runner printed and exported the requested path.Validation
settings_menu_coverage.pypassed against the workflow-pinned openQ4-game commit through a non-default.tmpworktreevalidation_hardening.pypy_compilegit diff --check