[lldb-dev] test rerun phase is in

[Siva Chandra via lldb-dev]

Can you try again after taking my change at r255584?

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev
<lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I'm having some of these blow up.
>
> In the case of test/lang/c/typedef/Testtypedef.py, it looks like some of the
> @expected decorators were changed a bit, and perhaps they are not pound for
> pound the same.  For example, this test used to really be marked XFAIL (via
> an expectedFailureClang directive), but it looks like the current marking of
> compiler="clang" is either not right or not working, since the test is run
> on OS X and is treated like it is expected to pass.
>
> I'm drilling into that a bit more, that's just the first of several that
> fail with these changes on OS X.
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've checked in r255567 which fixes a problem pointed out by Siva.  It
>> doesn't sound related to in 255542, but looking at those logs I can't really
>> tell how my CL would be related.  If r255567 doesn't fix the bots, would
>> someone mind helping me briefly?  r255542 seems pretty straightforward, so I
>> don't see why it would have an effect here.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah yes I see.  Thanks, Ying (and Siva!  Saw your comments too).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ying Chen <chying at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems this is the first build that fails, and it only has one CL 255542.
>>>>
>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/9446
>>>> I believe Zachary is looking at that problem.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am seeing several failures on the Ubuntu 14.04 testbot, but
>>>>> unfortunately there are a number of changes that went in at the same time on
>>>>> that build.  The failures I'm seeing are not appearing at all related to the
>>>>> test running infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody with a fast Linux system able to take a look to see what
>>>>> exactly is failing there?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just put in the single-worker, low-load, follow-up test run pass in
>>>>>> r255543.  Most of the work for it went in late last week, this just mostly
>>>>>> flips it on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The feature works like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * First test phase works as before: run all tests using whatever level
>>>>>> of concurrency is normally used.  (e.g. 8 works on an 8-logical-core box).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Any timeouts, failures, errors, or anything else that would have
>>>>>> caused a test failure is eligible for rerun if either (1) it was marked as a
>>>>>> flakey test via the flakey decorator, or (2) if the --rerun-all-issues
>>>>>> command line flag is provided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * After the first test phase, if there are any tests that met rerun
>>>>>> eligibility that would have caused a test failure, those get run using a
>>>>>> serial test phase.  Their results will overwrite (i.e. replace) the previous
>>>>>> result for the given test method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The net result should be that tests that were load sensitive and
>>>>>> intermittently fail during the first higher-concurrency test phase should
>>>>>> (in theory) pass in the second, single worker test phase when the test suite
>>>>>> is only using a single worker.  This should make the test suite generate
>>>>>> fewer false positives on test failure notification, which should make
>>>>>> continuous integration servers (testbots) much more useful in terms of
>>>>>> generating actionable signals caused by version control changes to the lldb
>>>>>> or related sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if you see any issues with this when running the
>>>>>> test suite using the default output.  I'd like to fix this up ASAP.  And for
>>>>>> those interested in the implementation, I'm happy to do post-commit
>>>>>> review/changes as needed to get it in good shape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll be watching the  builders now and will address any issues as I
>>>>>> see them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>
>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>