t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

[Ramsay Jones]

Hi Junio,

I noticed the revert of the 'ab/simplify-perl-makefile' branch on
top of 'pu'. So, I fired up my 32-bit Linux and attempted to see
if I could debug this t9001 test failure.

Unfortunately, I could not get it to fail. :(

Both of the 'pu' (@77e921d77d) and 'pu~1' (@cfef1ebefd) builds pass
the full test-suite and, likewise, running t9001 in a loop for a
count of 100 (about 45 minutes run-time each).

[If it makes any difference, I don't have sendmail installed (no
/usr/sbin/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail), or any sendmail in my
$PATH.]

Sorry I couldn't help with this! :(

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Re: t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Ramsay Jones
<ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> wrote:
> I noticed the revert of the 'ab/simplify-perl-makefile' branch on
> top of 'pu'. So, I fired up my 32-bit Linux and attempted to see
> if I could debug this t9001 test failure.
>
> Unfortunately, I could not get it to fail. :(
>
> Both of the 'pu' (@77e921d77d) and 'pu~1' (@cfef1ebefd) builds pass
> the full test-suite and, likewise, running t9001 in a loop for a
> count of 100 (about 45 minutes run-time each).
>
> [If it makes any difference, I don't have sendmail installed (no
> /usr/sbin/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail), or any sendmail in my
> $PATH.]
>
> Sorry I couldn't help with this! :(

It's a bug in my patch, I'll follow-up with a patch once I figure out
what it is, but for now I wanted to say it's my bad.

That this is failing has nothing to do with 32bit per say, but that
system doesn't have Error.pm installed, so we fall back on our own
copy, there's some bug in the new Error.pm fallback logic I
introduced.

Re: t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

[Ramsay Jones]

On 10/12/17 20:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Ramsay Jones
> <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> wrote:
>> I noticed the revert of the 'ab/simplify-perl-makefile' branch on
>> top of 'pu'. So, I fired up my 32-bit Linux and attempted to see
>> if I could debug this t9001 test failure.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I could not get it to fail. :(
>>
>> Both of the 'pu' (@77e921d77d) and 'pu~1' (@cfef1ebefd) builds pass
>> the full test-suite and, likewise, running t9001 in a loop for a
>> count of 100 (about 45 minutes run-time each).
>>
>> [If it makes any difference, I don't have sendmail installed (no
>> /usr/sbin/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail), or any sendmail in my
>> $PATH.]
>>
>> Sorry I couldn't help with this! :(
> 
> It's a bug in my patch, I'll follow-up with a patch once I figure out
> what it is, but for now I wanted to say it's my bad.
> 
> That this is failing has nothing to do with 32bit per say, but that
> system doesn't have Error.pm installed, so we fall back on our own
> copy, there's some bug in the new Error.pm fallback logic I
> introduced.

Ah, OK, that makes sense.

Thanks!

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Re: t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Dec 10 2017, Ramsay Jones jotted:

> On 10/12/17 20:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Ramsay Jones
>> <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed the revert of the 'ab/simplify-perl-makefile' branch on
>>> top of 'pu'. So, I fired up my 32-bit Linux and attempted to see
>>> if I could debug this t9001 test failure.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I could not get it to fail. :(
>>>
>>> Both of the 'pu' (@77e921d77d) and 'pu~1' (@cfef1ebefd) builds pass
>>> the full test-suite and, likewise, running t9001 in a loop for a
>>> count of 100 (about 45 minutes run-time each).
>>>
>>> [If it makes any difference, I don't have sendmail installed (no
>>> /usr/sbin/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail), or any sendmail in my
>>> $PATH.]
>>>
>>> Sorry I couldn't help with this! :(
>>
>> It's a bug in my patch, I'll follow-up with a patch once I figure out
>> what it is, but for now I wanted to say it's my bad.
>>
>> That this is failing has nothing to do with 32bit per say, but that
>> system doesn't have Error.pm installed, so we fall back on our own
>> copy, there's some bug in the new Error.pm fallback logic I
>> introduced.
>
> Ah, OK, that makes sense.

Updated patch sent just now as <20171210211333.9820-1-avarab@gmail.com>:
https://public-inbox.org/git/20171210211333.9820-1-avarab@gmail.com/

Re: t9001 failures on 32-bit Linux?

[Junio C Hamano]

Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:

> Hi Junio,
>
> I noticed the revert of the 'ab/simplify-perl-makefile' branch on
> top of 'pu'. So, I fired up my 32-bit Linux and attempted to see
> if I could debug this t9001 test failure.
>
> Unfortunately, I could not get it to fail. :(
>
> Both of the 'pu' (@77e921d77d) and 'pu~1' (@cfef1ebefd) builds pass
> the full test-suite and, likewise, running t9001 in a loop for a
> count of 100 (about 45 minutes run-time each).
>
> [If it makes any difference, I don't have sendmail installed (no
> /usr/sbin/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail), or any sendmail in my
> $PATH.]
>
> Sorry I couldn't help with this! :(

I suspect that the difference is not about send(e)mail per-se, but
the differences between the set of perl modules installed in the
linux32 Travis environment and the other one.  Perhaps the use of
deprecated Error.pm is the culprit?

I do appreciate that the environments we use on Travis are not
monoculture and we end up testing more variations (in this case,
the cause likely does not have anything to do with 64- vs 32-bit,
but Perl modules).  It sometimes gets confusing, though ;-)

Another difference I noticed while scanning the failing log is that
the Linux32 environment seem to lack libsvn-perl and all tests are
skipped there.  I do not think that this particular variation is
helping us to diversify our test base, though ;-)

Thanks.