[lldb-dev] BasicResultsFormatter - new test results summary

Wed Dec 9 10:26:47 PST 2015

The reports look good at the test level:

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/9294

I'd say the buildbot reflection script missed the ERROR, so that is
something maybe Ying can look at (the summary line in the build run), but
that is unrelated AFAICT.

I'm going to move aside the failures.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am going to stop the current build on that builder.  There was one
> change in it, and it will be another 20 minutes before it completes.  I
> don't want the repo in a known broken state that long.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I forced a build on the ubuntu 14.04 cmake builder.  The build _after_
>> 9292 will contain the two changes (and we will expect failures on it).
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> These went in as:
>>>
>>> r255130 - turn it on by default
>>> r255131 - create known issues.  This one is to be reverted if all 3
>>> types show up properly.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a small change.
>>>>
>>>> I almost have all the trial tests ready, so I'll just commit both
>>>> changes at the same time (the flip on, and the trial balloon issues).
>>>>
>>>> If all goes well and the three types of issue show up, then the last of
>>>> the two will get reverted (the one with the failures).
>>>>
>>>> If none (or only some) of the issues show up, they'll both get reverted.
>>>>
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it's not too much work, I think the extra bit of noise will not be
>>>>> a problem. But I don't think it is really necessary either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume the actual flip will be a small change that we can back out
>>>>> easily if we notice troubles... After a sufficient grace period we can
>>>>> remove the old formatter altogether and hopefully simplify the code
>>>>> somewhat.
>>>>>
>>>>> pl
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 December 2015 at 17:08, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Here's what I can do.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Put in the change (setting the default to use the new format).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Separately, put in a trial balloon commit with one failing test, one
>>>>> > exceptional exit test, and one timeout test, and watch the ubuntu
>>>>> 14.04
>>>>> > buildbot catch it and fail.  Then reverse this out.  That should
>>>>> show beyond
>>>>> > a reasonable doubt whether the buildbot catches new failures and
>>>>> errors.  (I
>>>>> > think this is a noisy way to accomplish this, but it certainly would
>>>>> > validate if its working).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Todd
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Specifically, the markers for issue details are:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> FAIL
>>>>> >> ERROR
>>>>> >> UNEXPECTED SUCCESS
>>>>> >> TIMEOUT
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> (These are the fourth field in the array entries (lines 275 - 290)
>>>>> of
>>>>> >> packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/basic_results_formatter.py).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -Todd
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> That's a good point, Tamas.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I use (so I claim) the same all upper-case markers for the test
>>>>> result
>>>>> >>> details.  Including, not using XPASS but rather UNEXPECTED SUCCESS
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>> unexpected successes.  (The former would trigger the lit script
>>>>> IIRC to
>>>>> >>> parse that as a failing-style result).
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The intent is this is a no-op on the test runner.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Tamas Berghammer <
>>>>> tberghammer at google.com>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> +Ying Chen
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Ying, what do we have to do on the build bot side to support a
>>>>> change in
>>>>> >>>> the default test result summary formatter?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:00 PM Todd Fiala via lldb-dev
>>>>> >>>> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Per a previous thread on this, I've made all the changes I
>>>>> intended to
>>>>> >>>>> make last night to get the intended replacement of test run
>>>>> results meet or
>>>>> >>>>> exceed current requirements.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> I'd like to switch over to that by default.  I'm depending on
>>>>> the test
>>>>> >>>>> event system to be able to handle test method reruns in test
>>>>> results
>>>>> >>>>> accounting.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The primary thing missing before was that timeouts were not
>>>>> routed
>>>>> >>>>> through the test events system, nor were exception process exits
>>>>> (i.e. test
>>>>> >>>>> inferiors exiting with a signal on POSIX systems).  Those were
>>>>> added last
>>>>> >>>>> night so that test events are generated for those, and the
>>>>> >>>>> BasicResultsFormatter presents that information properly.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> I will switch it over to being the default output in a bit here.
>>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you have any concerns once I flip it on by
>>>>> default.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> >>>>> --
>>>>> >>>>> -Todd
>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>>> >>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> >>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> --
>>>>> >>> -Todd
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> -Todd
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Todd
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>

-- 
-Todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151209/04cd611e/attachment.html>