From: Paul Barker <paul@pbarker.dev>
To: util-linux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Inconsistent results from script test case
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 20:20:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <978c83bdf7596879458f39f1789da016150a72d4.camel@pbarker.dev> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2088 bytes --]
Hi,
On the Yocto Project autobuilder we have seen occasional failures of the
util-linux test suite over the past year or so.
After investigating this, the failing test is the "size" subtest in
tests/ts/script/options. Occasionally, fewer characters than expected
are read from the pty and the test output doesn't match the expected
output.
Running the tested command in a loop locally, with heavy background load
on the CPUs, showed inconsistent results.
for i in $(seq 0 4095); do \
SCRIPT_TEST_SECOND_SINCE_EPOCH=1432489398 TZ=GMT \
../util-linux/test_script --output-limit 9 --command "echo 1:1234567890" test$i > /dev/null < /dev/null 2>&1 ; \
done
This generated 3849 runs with the expected output, where there is a
blank line after the echo command output (94%):
Script started on 2015-05-24 17:43:18+00:00 [COMMAND="echo 1:1234567890" <not executed on terminal>]
1:1234567890
Script done on 2015-05-24 17:43:18+00:00 [<max output size exceeded>]
And 247 runs without the blank line (6%):
Script started on 2015-05-24 17:43:18+00:00 [COMMAND="echo 1:1234567890" <not executed on terminal>]
1:1234567890
Script done on 2015-05-24 17:43:18+00:00 [<max output size exceeded>]
This test was performed on the current HEAD of util-linux, commit
e4656fa9765f ("zramctl: Add note about column descriptions").
I see two possible ways to fix this flaky test:
1) Modify `script` to never print more characters than the requested
output limit. This will ensure that the generated output is always
consistent, regardless of the influence of I/O buffering.
2) Modify the test case to accept both of the above possible output
variants.
We would like some input from folks more familiar with util-linux on
which of those options is preferred. For option (1) I should be able to
send a patch, for option (2) more invasive changes to the test framework
may be needed to allow for multiple expected outputs so I may not be
able to contribute that change myself.
Best regards,
--
Paul Barker
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]
reply other threads:[~2025-12-18 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=978c83bdf7596879458f39f1789da016150a72d4.camel@pbarker.dev \
--to=paul@pbarker.dev \
--cc=util-linux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox