[lldb-dev] test rerun phase is in

[Todd Fiala via lldb-dev]

The full set that are blowing up are:

=============
Issue Details
=============
FAIL: test_expr_stripped_dwarf (lang/objc/hidden-ivars/TestHiddenIvars.py)
FAIL: test_frame_variable_stripped_dwarf
(lang/objc/hidden-ivars/TestHiddenIvars.py)
FAIL: test_typedef_dsym (lang/c/typedef/Testtypedef.py)
FAIL: test_typedef_dwarf (lang/c/typedef/Testtypedef.py)
FAIL: test_with_python_api_dwarf
(lang/objc/objc-static-method-stripped/TestObjCStaticMethodStripped.py)
FAIL: test_with_python_api_dwarf
(lang/objc/objc-ivar-stripped/TestObjCIvarStripped.py)

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> 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://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/?view=rev&revision=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
>



-- 
-Todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151214/9e41a9e4/attachment.html>