From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 19:03:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] t/lib-gpg: ensure GNUPGHOME is created as needed
Message-ID: <875xc02mmq.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqqzuoi6sg.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
>
>> The only possible source of flakiness in the tests I can see is the
>> possibility of t/t1016/gpg not getting called (which uses a fixed
>> timestamp).  It appears you just fixed that problem in commit
>> 516bf45749bb ("t1016: make sure to use specified GPG").
>
> I think that one also is in 'seen', and yet we saw t1016 flaky X-<.
>
> Let me isolate the relevant topics and test them again, i.e.
>
>     $ git checkout --detach v2.51.0
>     $ git merge --no-ff jc/t1016-setup-fix ;# 516bf45749
>     $ git merge --no-ff tz/test-prepare-gnupghome~1 ;# 6cd8369ef3
>     $ git log --no-merges --oneline v2.51.0..
>     516bf45749 (jc/t1016-setup-fix) t1016: make sure to use specified GPG
>     6cd8369ef3 t/lib-gpg: call prepare_gnupghome() in GPG2 prereq
>     a35952b493 t/lib-gpg: add prepare_gnupghome() to create GNUPGHOME dir
>     $ make
>     $ cd t && ./t1016-*.sh --stress
>     FAIL 10.1
>     FAIL  5.1
>     FAIL 34.1
>     ...
>     ++ eval 'diff -u' '"$@"'
>     +++ diff -u signedcommit3_sha1 signedcommit3_sha1_expected
>     --- signedcommit3_sha1	2025-10-27 17:34:58.237496945 +0000
>     +++ signedcommit3_sha1_expected	2025-10-27 17:34:58.145497051 +0000
>     @@ -1 +1 @@
>     -de9cabc2419f97eb665452c198ed93e890a7ef87
>     +c87cd5157461a81b60ef6d3c47562c12b328ef54
>     error: last command exited with $?=1
>     not ok 163 - Verify commit signedcommit3's sha1 oid
>     #	
>     #			git --git-dir=repo-sha256/.git rev-parse --output-object-format=sha1 ${sha256_oid} >${name}_sha1 &&
>     #			test_cmp ${name}_sha1 ${name}_sha1_expected
>     #		
>     1..163

Interesting.  With --stress I can reproduce the flakiness locally as
well.

I am starting to dig any but I haven't found any smoking guns yet.  So
far manually running the commands that resulted in the failure are
giving me the same output, but I have several more to run.

>> With that commit reverted I can reproduce the flakiness locally
>> by just running the test manually a few times.
>
> The above is with all three patches mentioned.
> FWIW, "gpg --version | head -2" says
>
>     gpg (GnuPG) 2.4.8
>     libgcrypt 1.11.2
>
> Hmmmm.....

I have gpg 2.4.7 but otherwise things are identical.

Eric