threads / discuss / 40608

t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

Subject: t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

## tl;dr

5 messages between Oct 21, 2015 and Oct 21, 2015.

replies: 4people: 3as markdown or json

Ramsay Jones· Oct 21, 2015, 14:37 UTC · lore

Hi Junio,

While testing the next branch today, I had a test failure, viz:

    $ tail ntest-out-fail
    Test Summary Report
    -------------------
    t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh                  (Wstat: 256 Tests: 32 Failed: 22)
      Failed tests:  1-18, 20-21, 25, 29
      Non-zero exit status: 1
    Files=726, Tests=13035, 394 wallclock secs ( 3.61 usr  0.51 sys + 82.93 cusr 256.21 csys = 343.26 CPU)
    Result: FAIL
    make[1]: *** [prove] Error 1
    make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ramsay/git/t'
    make: *** [test] Error 2
    $

However, I have not been able to reproduce the failure, so it seems to be an intermittent fault. (Unfortunately, I trashed the 'trash' directory before thinking to save it - although I almost always find it useless for debugging if you haven't run the test with '-i -v' anyway.)

So, this is just a 'heads up', since I can't debug it. :(

ATB, Ramsay Jones

Torsten Bögershausen· Oct 21, 2015, 16:05 UTC · re: Ramsay Jones · lore

Re: t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

On 21.10.15 16:37, Ramsay Jones wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Hi Junio,
> 
> While testing the next branch today, I had a test failure, viz:
> 
>     $ tail ntest-out-fail
>     Test Summary Report
>     -------------------
>     t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh                  (Wstat: 256 Tests: 32 Failed: 22)

Does this patch help ?
(Recently send & tested by David. I just copy & paste the diff)
[]
 
Signed-off-by: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
---
 t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
index 37a24c1..0e8d0d4 100755
--- a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
+++ b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
@@ -412,7 +412,9 @@ test_expect_success 'create/modify files, some of which are gitignored' '
 	echo two bis >done/two &&
 	echo three >done/three && # three is gitignored
 	echo four >done/four && # four is gitignored at a higher level
-	echo five >done/five # five is not gitignored
+	echo five >done/five && # five is not gitignored
+	echo test >base && #we need to ensure that the root dir is touched
+	rm base
 '

Ramsay Jones· Oct 21, 2015, 16:22 UTC · re: Torsten Bögershausen · lore

Re: t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

On 21/10/15 17:05, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 21.10.15 16:37, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> Hi Junio,
>>
>> While testing the next branch today, I had a test failure, viz:
>>
>>     $ tail ntest-out-fail
>>     Test Summary Report
>>     -------------------
>>     t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh                  (Wstat: 256 Tests: 32 Failed: 22)
> 
> Does this patch help ?
> (Recently send & tested by David. I just copy & paste the diff)
> []
>

No, that patch is already in next and was part of the build that failed:

    $ git log -1 --oneline 9b680fbd3
    9b680fb t7063: fix flaky untracked-cache test
    $ git branch --contains 9b680fbd3
    * next
      pu
    $

Again, I haven't been able to reproduce the failure ...

[I should have said the this is today's next branch @ 3b31934 Sync with master. This is on Linux Mint 17.2]

Thanks.

ATB, Ramsay Jones

Show 20 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
> ---
>  t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> index 37a24c1..0e8d0d4 100755
> --- a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> +++ b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> @@ -412,7 +412,9 @@ test_expect_success 'create/modify files, some of which are gitignored' '
>  	echo two bis >done/two &&
>  	echo three >done/three && # three is gitignored
>  	echo four >done/four && # four is gitignored at a higher level
> -	echo five >done/five # five is not gitignored
> +	echo five >done/five && # five is not gitignored
> +	echo test >base && #we need to ensure that the root dir is touched
> +	rm base
>  '
> 
>

David Turner· Oct 21, 2015, 17:50 UTC · re: Torsten Bögershausen · lore

Re: t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 18:05 +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On 21.10.15 16:37, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> > Hi Junio,
> > 
> > While testing the next branch today, I had a test failure, viz:
> > 
> >     $ tail ntest-out-fail
> >     Test Summary Report
> >     -------------------
> >     t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh                  (Wstat: 256 Tests: 32 Failed: 22)
> 
> Does this patch help ?
> (Recently send & tested by David. I just copy & paste the diff)

My patch fixes one of the tests, but Ramsay has a zillion failures (presumably because test 1 fails and most everything else follows from that).

That test could fail if your clock were running fast and you had 1-second resolution timetamps on your filesystem and you were somewhat unlucky.

Ramsay Jones· Oct 21, 2015, 19:51 UTC · re: David Turner · lore

Re: t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh test failure on next

On 21/10/15 18:50, David Turner wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 18:05 +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
>> On 21.10.15 16:37, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>>> Hi Junio,
>>>
>>> While testing the next branch today, I had a test failure, viz:
>>>
>>>     $ tail ntest-out-fail
>>>     Test Summary Report
>>>     -------------------
>>>     t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh                  (Wstat: 256 Tests: 32 Failed: 22)
>>
>> Does this patch help ?
>> (Recently send & tested by David. I just copy & paste the diff)
> 
> My patch fixes one of the tests, but Ramsay has a zillion failures
> (presumably because test 1 fails and most everything else follows from
> that).
> 
> That test could fail if your clock were running fast and you had
> 1-second resolution timetamps on your filesystem and you were somewhat
> unlucky.

yep. I've just stopped running the test in a loop after about an hour. In that time it has executed the test about 130+ times (yeah, I forgot the count), with no failures. I'm going to give up now and declare that I was simply unlucky! :-D

ATB, Ramsay Jones