Hi Junio,
I actually tested v1.7.12-rc0-22-gcdd159b, thus:
$ time $(GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t0061.3 t0070.3 t9010 t9300' make test >
test-outp1 2>&1)
real 137m11.901s
user 118m55.071s
sys 59m50.695s
$
the result, ignoring the explicity skipped tests (nothing new there), was
three additional failures:
t1100.5, t7502.21 and t7810.59
I will be sending a patch to fix t1100.5 (patch #1).
The failure in t7502-commit.sh seems to be the result of commit 8c5b1ae1
("ident: reject bogus email addresses with IDENT_STRICT", 24-05-2012)
being more strict with non fully qualified hostnames. I get the "tell me
who you are" message and the error:
fatal: unable to auto-detect email address (got 'ramsay@toshiba.(none)')
However, I *think* I saw that Jeff has submitted a fix for this already.
Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.
I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:
$ for i in $(seq 100); do
> if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then
> break;
> fi
> done
$
but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result
in a failure. :(
However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)
test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the
failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:
Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.
I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:
$ for i in $(seq 100); do
> if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then
> break;
> fi
> done
$
but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result
in a failure. :(
However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)
test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the
failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]
Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only,
is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS).
I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though.
Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave
out the option -v?
Thanks,
René
René Scharfe wrote:
Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:
quoted
Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.
I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:
$ for i in $(seq 100); do
> if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then
> break;
> fi
> done
$
but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result
in a failure. :(
However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)
test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the
failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]
Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only,
is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS).
Indeed.
I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though.
Yep, me too.
Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave
out the option -v?
Yes, one of the "among other things" I tried was to drop the -v, but the
end result was the same. Also, since I have "DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove"
in my config.mak, I tried:
$ for i in $(seq 100); do
> if ! prove --exec sh t7810-grep.sh; then
> break;
> fi
> done
$
But again, it didn't provoke a failure (it did run quite a bit faster ...).
I have now run this test file in excess of 600 times without failure in the
last two evenings (taking about 5-6 hours wallclock time).
[I haven't come remotely close to running the test-suite 600 times on
cygwin in the last 6 years ...]
So, I'm out of ideas (and will stop trying to reproduce the failure).
ATB,
Ramsay Jones