The changeset is huge and it is not exactly clear what is going on here. What is the use case? Why/when would run_test be not a string?

How about changinging tests_out, tests_ec = super(EB_PyTorch, self).test_step(return_output_ec=True) to:

test_result = super(EB_PyTorch, self).test_step(return_output_ec=True)
if test_result is None:
    # Test skipped
    return
tests_out, tests_ec = test_result

And maybe log a message instead of the "Test skipped" comment.
This keeps all the handling IF a test should be run to the super-test_step and only handles the case where it isn't run

But again: Why would you want that given that we have --ignore-test-failure and --skip-test-step?

Because someone might get into their heads (like me) to set runtest = False which would then result in a crash...
So it's mostly about making sure that bad things don't happen unexpectedly.

Because someone might get into their heads (like me) to set runtest = False which would then result in a crash... So it's mostly about making sure that bad things don't happen unexpectedly.

Then maybe add to the very top of the function a if self.cfg['runtest'] is False to make this explicit but IMO the proposed solution is better. Or a clear error when it is not a string_type.

But I'd really use an early return here. Avoids all that indentation and complications

Well runtest = True also crashes, but the
test_result = super(EB_PyTorch, self).test_step(return_output_ec=True)
version is probably easier to get right.

Well runtest = True also crashes,

True (no pun intended). Then maybe instead of logging "Tests skipped" we should simply throw an EasyBuildError if the result is None maybe with some handling of the potential values. E.g. runtest=False -> Refer to --skip-test-step, runtest set (if runtest:) -> Likely invalid format, otherwise unknown error in the super-method

Wouldn't it be better to pick up on this as early as possible... i.e. at init time or so...

Wouldn't it be better to pick up on this as early as possible... i.e. at init time or so...

Not sure if we really want to duplicate the logic. E.g. the super-test_step does some checking e.g. against self.testcmd and only then decides whether to run the tests. And all official ECs have this right anyway. So I'd just improve the error, not preventatively avoid it.
My thinking is that if we change e.g. the conditions in (super-)test_step or set self.testcmd somewhere in pytorch we could miss that error handling in __init__ which could become plain wrong. Hence I like the Python mantra: "Better ask for forgiveness than permission" --> Handle the error case if and when it appears. Not avoid it in case someone broke something.

Ok, makes sense. just tired of waiting for +30min of building before the code hits the problem :-)

@Flamefire something like this?

Test report by @boegel

Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)

• FAIL (build issue) PyTorch-1.12.1-foss-2022a.eb (partial log available at https://gist.github.com/9121f45c935850102c496e262d160d51)

Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node3118.skitty.os - Linux RHEL 8.6, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz (skylake_avx512), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/bddfff9d5a0629e1915c2ed89e583698 for a full test report.

The fact that some PyTorch tests (still) fail is irrelevant to the changes in this PR, so I'll go ahead and merge this...