| Submitter | Mads Kiilerich |
|---|---|
| Date | Oct. 17, 2016, 11:33 p.m. |
| Message ID | <548f82b480d086c7a551.1476747236@madski> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/17164/ |
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> > # Date 1476746894 -7200 > # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 > # Branch stable > # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 > # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a > tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to fail I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? It is also not clear to me that the test is still valid once we replace "c" with "C". --check is quite strict and I'm not sure why someone would have put it there randomly. (note: this is targeted for stable so it can probably be taken after the freeze is in effect) > diff --git a/tests/test-largefiles-update.t b/tests/test-largefiles-update.t > --- a/tests/test-largefiles-update.t > +++ b/tests/test-largefiles-update.t > @@ -732,12 +732,16 @@ bit correctly on the platform being unaw > > #endif > > +FIXME: At this point large2 seems to be fishy and cause up -c to fail > +"randomly" even though summary shows no changes. For now, just work around it: > + $ rm large2 .hglf/large2 > + > Test a fatal error interrupting an update. Verify that status report dirty > files correctly after an interrupted update. Also verify that checking all > hashes reveals it isn't clean. > > Start with clean dirstates: > - $ hg up -qcr "8^" > + $ hg up -qCr "8^" > $ sleep 1 > $ hg st > Update standins without updating largefiles - large1 is modified and largeX is
On 10/18/2016 02:30 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > > On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >> # HG changeset patch >> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> >> # Date 1476746894 -7200 >> # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 >> # Branch stable >> # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 >> # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a >> tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to >> fail > > I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? I'm also not sure what is going on. I suddenly saw the new test I added started to fail. Not in the actual test but in the setup code. Apparently unrelated to other recent changes - the new test just happened to expose it. Thus, I suggest this workaround for now. /Mads
On 10/18/2016 03:18 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 10/18/2016 02:30 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >> >> >> On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>> # HG changeset patch >>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> >>> # Date 1476746894 -7200 >>> # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 >>> # Branch stable >>> # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 >>> # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a >>> tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to >>> fail >> >> I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? > > I'm also not sure what is going on. I suddenly saw the new test I added > started to fail. Not in the actual test but in the setup code. > Apparently unrelated to other recent changes - the new test just > happened to expose it. Thus, I suggest this workaround for now. I would be more comfortable if we had a better idea of what is going one here. Can you have a deeper look? Cheers,
On 10/18/2016 03:32 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > > On 10/18/2016 03:18 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 02:30 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>>> # HG changeset patch >>>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> >>>> # Date 1476746894 -7200 >>>> # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 >>>> # Branch stable >>>> # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 >>>> # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a >>>> tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to >>>> fail >>> >>> I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? >> >> I'm also not sure what is going on. I suddenly saw the new test I added >> started to fail. Not in the actual test but in the setup code. >> Apparently unrelated to other recent changes - the new test just >> happened to expose it. Thus, I suggest this workaround for now. > > I would be more comfortable if we had a better idea of what is going one > here. Can you have a deeper look? Any news on this? Cheers,
On 10/28/2016 10:35 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > > On 10/18/2016 03:32 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >> >> >> On 10/18/2016 03:18 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>> On 10/18/2016 02:30 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>>>> # HG changeset patch >>>>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> >>>>> # Date 1476746894 -7200 >>>>> # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 >>>>> # Branch stable >>>>> # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 >>>>> # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a >>>>> tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to >>>>> fail >>>> >>>> I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? >>> >>> I'm also not sure what is going on. I suddenly saw the new test I added >>> started to fail. Not in the actual test but in the setup code. >>> Apparently unrelated to other recent changes - the new test just >>> happened to expose it. Thus, I suggest this workaround for now. >> >> I would be more comfortable if we had a better idea of what is going one >> here. Can you have a deeper look? > > Any news on this? No. The patch still makes the setup part of my new test work reliably despite an apparent existing instability in the state left from the previous test. I haven't investigated further. /Mads
On 10/28/2016 12:31 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 10/28/2016 10:35 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >> >> >> On 10/18/2016 03:32 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/18/2016 03:18 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2016 02:30 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/2016 01:33 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>>>>> # HG changeset patch >>>>>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> >>>>>> # Date 1476746894 -7200 >>>>>> # Tue Oct 18 01:28:14 2016 +0200 >>>>>> # Branch stable >>>>>> # Node ID 548f82b480d086c7a551b025fb980cd70187c880 >>>>>> # Parent 328545c7d8a1044330b8a5bfbdd9c2ff08625d6a >>>>>> tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to >>>>>> fail >>>>> >>>>> I'm not too sure of what is going on here, Can you elaborate? >>>> >>>> I'm also not sure what is going on. I suddenly saw the new test I added >>>> started to fail. Not in the actual test but in the setup code. >>>> Apparently unrelated to other recent changes - the new test just >>>> happened to expose it. Thus, I suggest this workaround for now. >>> >>> I would be more comfortable if we had a better idea of what is going one >>> here. Can you have a deeper look? >> >> Any news on this? > > No. The patch still makes the setup part of my new test work reliably > despite an apparent existing instability in the state left from the > previous test. I haven't investigated further. I think we want a bit more knowledge about the situation, I'm dropping this from patchwork. Cheers,
Patch
diff --git a/tests/test-largefiles-update.t b/tests/test-largefiles-update.t --- a/tests/test-largefiles-update.t +++ b/tests/test-largefiles-update.t @@ -732,12 +732,16 @@ bit correctly on the platform being unaw #endif +FIXME: At this point large2 seems to be fishy and cause up -c to fail +"randomly" even though summary shows no changes. For now, just work around it: + $ rm large2 .hglf/large2 + Test a fatal error interrupting an update. Verify that status report dirty files correctly after an interrupted update. Also verify that checking all hashes reveals it isn't clean. Start with clean dirstates: - $ hg up -qcr "8^" + $ hg up -qCr "8^" $ sleep 1 $ hg st Update standins without updating largefiles - large1 is modified and largeX is