[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] 5 minute timeout for tests

[Zachary Turner]

Note: At some point lldb-commits got lost from the Reply list.  I'm putting
it back just so that other interested parties aren't kept out of the loop.

--

I'm kind of against this unless we know why the tests are failing, and
maybe even then.  Is this really a common enough thing that we need to
either increase the maintenance burden of the test suite by adding features
to it (any features, much less ones that are implemented differently on
each platform), or have to add a dependency on a 3rd party python module?
Both of those options are really undesirable in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, this is just for running the test suite locally --
the bots already have a global timeout.  If a test hangs locally, you can
just kill it with a shell command in less time than it would take for this
5 minute timeout to expire.

Regardless, I kind of don't like the idea of making it easier to ignore
broken tests.  If it's that painful, I think the test should be either
fixed or disabled.

On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 2:27:40 PM Chaoren Lin <chaorenl at google.com> wrote:

> Why are the tests hanging?
>
>
> No clue.
>
>
>> Can we just disable the hanging tests?
>
>
> We still want them to run, they should just be equivalent to failing tests.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If it does go in, i think i would actually prefer psutil over platform
>> specific implementations of it.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why are the tests hanging?  Can we just disable the hanging tests?  I'm
>>> a little leary of sinking more platform specific logic into the test
>>> runner.
>>>
>>> On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 9:56:52 AM Chaoren Lin <chaorenl at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link Zachary, but unfortunately, we need to kill the
>>>> entire process tree, and I don't think there's a way to do that portably in
>>>> python itself. There's psutil, but we probably shouldn't add another
>>>> dependency just for this convenience.
>>>>
>>>> I think timeout works really well for linux, would it be a terrible
>>>> idea to use that only for linux, TASKKILL /T for windows, and then
>>>> something else for OS X?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri Nov 21 2014 at 4:20:59 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this is a good starting point:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1191374/subprocess-with-timeout
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D6364
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20141201/2097e0b7/attachment.html>