threads / discuss / 38579

'make test' fails in pu

Subject: 'make test' fails in pu

## tl;dr

4 messages between Feb 17, 2015 and Feb 17, 2015.

replies: 3people: 4as markdown or json

Dennis Kaarsemaker· Feb 17, 2015, 08:39 UTC · lore

Make test has been failing for 'pu' yesterday for and today at t4016-diff-quote.sh. Full log: http://ci.kaarsemaker.net/git/refs/heads/pu/1df29c71a731c679de9055ae5e407f3a4e18740a/artefact/test/log

I noticed this a few times before and it tends to get fixed again relatively quickly. So I'm wondering:

- Should I even mention that it's failing, or is that just useless
  noise?
- If I should report this, I could also make my testing thing send 
  mails. Would that be useful?
-- 
Dennis Kaarsemaker
http://www.kaarsemaker.net
Jeff King· Feb 17, 2015, 08:55 UTC · re: Dennis Kaarsemaker · lore

Re: 'make test' fails in pu

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:39:17AM +0100, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Make test has been failing for 'pu' yesterday for and today at
> t4016-diff-quote.sh. Full log:
> http://ci.kaarsemaker.net/git/refs/heads/pu/1df29c71a731c679de9055ae5e407f3a4e18740a/artefact/test/log
> 
> I noticed this a few times before and it tends to get fixed again
> relatively quickly. So I'm wondering:
> 
> - Should I even mention that it's failing, or is that just useless
>   noise?
> - If I should report this, I could also make my testing thing send 
>   mails. Would that be useful?
If you bisect this, it turns up commit 30cd8f94f, which says:
    WIP: diff-b-m
    [...]
    This update is still broken and breaks a handful of tests:
    
         4016 4023 4047 4130 6022 6031 6032 9300 9200 9300 9350

Sometimes a breakage in pu is surprising (e.g., it breaks only on a platform that the maintainer does not run "make test" on) and we would want to know about it. But sometimes it is merely that there is a work-in-progress. And it probably requires a human to tell the difference.

So no, I do not think automatically mailing on test failures in pu is a good idea. Manually peeking at them and sending fixes before the series is merged to next _is_ very much encouraged, though. :)

Unlike "pu", "next" and "master" should never fail tests (I think that Junio will not push them out if the tests have failed on his system). So failures there are much more likely to be interesting platform bugs (but of course, testing "pu" is still encouraged, as we may catch problems).

But even for "next", I would say blind automated emails are not nearly as useful as a human who has looked at the problem (and especially bisected).

-Peff
Michael Blume· Feb 17, 2015, 19:07 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: 'make test' fails in pu

For the record, that commit also sporadically breaks test 3910 on my system (mentioning since it's not on the list)

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 48 quoted lines
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:39:17AM +0100, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
>
>> Make test has been failing for 'pu' yesterday for and today at
>> t4016-diff-quote.sh. Full log:
>> http://ci.kaarsemaker.net/git/refs/heads/pu/1df29c71a731c679de9055ae5e407f3a4e18740a/artefact/test/log
>>
>> I noticed this a few times before and it tends to get fixed again
>> relatively quickly. So I'm wondering:
>>
>> - Should I even mention that it's failing, or is that just useless
>>   noise?
>> - If I should report this, I could also make my testing thing send
>>   mails. Would that be useful?
>
> If you bisect this, it turns up commit 30cd8f94f, which says:
>
>     WIP: diff-b-m
>
>     [...]
>
>     This update is still broken and breaks a handful of tests:
>
>          4016 4023 4047 4130 6022 6031 6032 9300 9200 9300 9350
>
> Sometimes a breakage in pu is surprising (e.g., it breaks only on a
> platform that the maintainer does not run "make test" on) and we would
> want to know about it. But sometimes it is merely that there is a
> work-in-progress. And it probably requires a human to tell the
> difference.
>
> So no, I do not think automatically mailing on test failures in pu is a
> good idea. Manually peeking at them and sending fixes before the series
> is merged to next _is_ very much encouraged, though. :)
>
> Unlike "pu", "next" and "master" should never fail tests (I think that
> Junio will not push them out if the tests have failed on his system). So
> failures there are much more likely to be interesting platform bugs (but
> of course, testing "pu" is still encouraged, as we may catch problems).
>
> But even for "next", I would say blind automated emails are not nearly
> as useful as a human who has looked at the problem (and especially
> bisected).
>
> -Peff
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Junio C Hamano· Feb 17, 2015, 19:44 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: 'make test' fails in pu

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Sometimes a breakage in pu is surprising (e.g., it breaks only on a
> platform that the maintainer does not run "make test" on) and we would
> want to know about it. But sometimes it is merely that there is a
> work-in-progress. And it probably requires a human to tell the
> difference.
>
> So no, I do not think automatically mailing on test failures in pu is a
> good idea. Manually peeking at them and sending fixes before the series
> is merged to next _is_ very much encouraged, though. :)

Thanks, that is exactly what people saw. From time to time, I queue a topic that does not pass the tests on 'pu', hoping that somebody sufficiently interested would step in to collaborate with the author of the topic to move things forward when the breakage looks simple enough, and sometimes that original author happens to be me.

This case, it turns out that the breakage is not so simple, though. Inside the rename detection logic, I want to peek the rename source array to decide which deletion filepair to keep, but rename source array itself has pointers to the original filepairs the loop wants to free, so the WIP code was peeking into a freed piece memory X-<.

> Unlike "pu", "next" and "master" should never fail tests (I think that
> Junio will not push them out if the tests have failed on his system). So
> failures there are much more likely to be interesting platform bugs (but
> of course, testing "pu" is still encouraged, as we may catch problems).

True. I do not mind automated tests on 'next', and testing 'pu' and helping the topic to move forward is very much encouraged, but sending test results on 'pu' blindly is often more noise than it is worth.

← back to recent threads