[PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin

[PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin

[Ramsay Jones]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin

[René Scharfe]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin

[Junio C Hamano]

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).

Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin

[Ramsay Jones]

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