* [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin
@ 2012-07-28 18:46 Ramsay Jones
2012-07-29 8:57 ` René Scharfe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2012-07-28 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: GIT Mailing-list
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin
2012-07-28 18:46 [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Ramsay Jones
@ 2012-07-29 8:57 ` René Scharfe
2012-07-29 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-07-31 17:38 ` Ramsay Jones
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: René Scharfe @ 2012-07-29 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ramsay Jones; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, GIT Mailing-list
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin
2012-07-29 8:57 ` René Scharfe
@ 2012-07-29 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-07-31 17:38 ` Ramsay Jones
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-07-29 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: René Scharfe; +Cc: Ramsay Jones, GIT Mailing-list
René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> 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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin
2012-07-29 8:57 ` René Scharfe
2012-07-29 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-07-31 17:38 ` Ramsay Jones
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2012-07-31 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: René Scharfe; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, GIT Mailing-list
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-31 17:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-28 18:46 [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Ramsay Jones
2012-07-29 8:57 ` René Scharfe
2012-07-29 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-07-31 17:38 ` Ramsay Jones
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).