# [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin 4 messages from 2012-07-28 to 2012-07-31. Participants: Ramsay Jones, René Scharfe, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/31127 ## Ramsay Jones, 2012-07-28 18:46 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Message-ID: <50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/50143379.8050500%40ramsay1.demon.co.uk ``` Hi Junio, I actually tested v1.7.12-rc0-22-gcdd159b, thus: $ time $(GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t0061.3 t0070.3 t9010 t9300' make test > test-outp1 2>&1) real 137m11.901s user 118m55.071s sys 59m50.695s $ the result, ignoring the explicity skipped tests (nothing new there), was three additional failures: t1100.5, t7502.21 and t7810.59 I will be sending a patch to fix t1100.5 (patch #1). The failure in t7502-commit.sh seems to be the result of commit 8c5b1ae1 ("ident: reject bogus email addresses with IDENT_STRICT", 24-05-2012) being more strict with non fully qualified hostnames. I get the "tell me who you are" message and the error: fatal: unable to auto-detect email address (got 'ramsay@toshiba.(none)') However, I *think* I saw that Jeff has submitted a fix for this already. Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh. I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus: $ for i in $(seq 100); do > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then > break; > fi > done $ but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result in a failure. :( However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant) test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...] ATB, Ramsay Jones ``` ## René Scharfe, 2012-07-29 08:57 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Message-ID: <5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/5014FAE6.7080009%40lsrfire.ath.cx In-Reply-To: <50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> ``` Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones: > Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh. > I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus: > > $ for i in $(seq 100); do > > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then > > break; > > fi > > done > $ > > but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result > in a failure. :( > > However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant) > test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the > failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...] Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only, is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS). I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though. Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave out the option -v? Thanks, René ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2012-07-29 20:33 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Message-ID: <7va9yiwbmf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7va9yiwbmf.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx> ``` René Scharfe writes: > Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones: >> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh. >> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus: >> >> $ for i in $(seq 100); do >> > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then >> > break; >> > fi >> > done >> $ >> >> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result >> in a failure. :( >> >> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant) >> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the >> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...] > > Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep > only, is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on > MAXARGS). > > I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, > though. Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if > you leave out the option -v? Thanks for a comment. I agree that removing the test makes sense, and I also agree that the non reproducibleness is worrying (the latter is more important). ``` ## Ramsay Jones, 2012-07-31 17:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Message-ID: <5018182F.5000501@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/5018182F.5000501%40ramsay1.demon.co.uk In-Reply-To: <5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx> ``` René Scharfe wrote: > Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones: >> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh. >> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus: >> >> $ for i in $(seq 100); do >> > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then >> > break; >> > fi >> > done >> $ >> >> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result >> in a failure. :( >> >> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant) >> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the >> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...] > > Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only, > is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS). Indeed. > I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though. Yep, me too. > Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave > out the option -v? Yes, one of the "among other things" I tried was to drop the -v, but the end result was the same. Also, since I have "DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove" in my config.mak, I tried: $ for i in $(seq 100); do > if ! prove --exec sh t7810-grep.sh; then > break; > fi > done $ But again, it didn't provoke a failure (it did run quite a bit faster ...). I have now run this test file in excess of 600 times without failure in the last two evenings (taking about 5-6 hours wallclock time). [I haven't come remotely close to running the test-suite 600 times on cygwin in the last 6 years ...] So, I'm out of ideas (and will stop trying to reproduce the failure). ATB, Ramsay Jones ```