[squeak-dev] [Vm-dev] some stupid failures
ron at usmedrec.com
Tue Jan 5 16:58:46 UTC 2021
Seems like more of a warning and not a failure.
All the best,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:22 AM Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de> wrote:
> Hi Nicolas.
> > Do we really want to keep this kind of test?
> Such benchmarks (and benchmark-like tests) should at least average over
> several runs and only fail as a test if something actually got slower on
> average. Or something like that. A single misbehaving run should not be the
> reason for such a test failure.
> Maybe we can tweak #should:notTakeMoreThan: to evaluate the block several
> times? But then it cannot fail early on as it is doing now ... Hmmm...
> Am 05.01.2021 09:08:46 schrieb Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
> sometimes, some build fail for just 1 test...
> a squeak.stack.v3
> ✗ #testSetForward (7ms)
> TestFailure: Block evaluation took more than the expected 0:00:00:00.004
> RenderBugz>>testSetForward ...shouldntTakeLong: [ t forwardDirection:
> 180.0 .
> self assert: ( t forwardDirection = 0.0 ) ]
> 4ms, really? On C.I. infrastructure, anything can happen...
> Do we really want to keep this kind of test?
> We eventually could once startup performance is known (see
> isLowerPerformance discussion on squeak-dev), but in the interim, I
> suggest we neutralize this specific test in Smalltalk-CI.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev