Patchwork [stable] tests: work around instability that caused test from 4999c12c526b to fail

login
register
mail settings
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

Mads Kiilerich - Oct. 17, 2016, 11:33 p.m.
# 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
Pierre-Yves David - Oct. 18, 2016, 12:30 p.m.
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
Mads Kiilerich - Oct. 18, 2016, 1:18 p.m.
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
Pierre-Yves David - Oct. 18, 2016, 1:32 p.m.
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,
Pierre-Yves David - Oct. 28, 2016, 8:35 a.m.
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,
Mads Kiilerich - Oct. 28, 2016, 10:31 a.m.
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
Pierre-Yves David - Nov. 1, 2016, 3:53 p.m.
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