[Vm-dev] CI status

[Nicolas Cellier]

Le lun. 26 oct. 2020 à 16:26, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
>
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 7:22 AM, Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> Le lun. 26 oct. 2020 à 15:11, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2020, at 6:59 AM, Nicolas Cellier <
>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> I have restored (I think) the green status of minheadless build.
>>
>>
>> Thank you so much!
>>
>> We could eventually authorize failure of all those builds, or restrict
>> the number of flavours that we build (it takes really loooong time before
>> we get CI feedback).
>> But if we abandon all those now, I fear that we never catch up; it's a
>> one way ticket. IMO there are still interesting ideas to take, even if
>> development has continued in Pharo fork...
>>
>>
>> One approach might be to split them into “essential” and “nice to have”
>> so we get faster feedback from the “essential” set.
>>
>> +1, but I do not know how to configure the CI like that...
>
>> Now the next failing build on travis is about squeak.cog.v3. Did some
>> incompatible VM change took place?
>>
>> For example
>> https://travis-ci.org/github/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/jobs/738831149
>>
>> ######################################################
>>
>> # Squeak-4.6 on Travis CI (2278.23)                  #
>>
>> # 3401 Tests with 5 Failures and 0 Errors in 112.13s #
>>
>> ######################################################
>>
>> #########################
>>
>> # 5 tests did not pass: #
>>
>> #########################
>>
>> SUnitToolBuilderTests
>> 837fef_266b
>>
>>  ✗ #testHandlingNotification (10023ms)
>>
>> TestValueWithinFix
>> 2a65cb_266b
>>
>>  ✗ #testValueWithinTimingBasic (1005ms)
>> e9a7ab_266b
>>
>>  ✗ #testValueWithinTimingNestedInner (1001ms)
>> c57415_266b
>>
>>  ✗ #testValueWithinTimingNestedOuter (1002ms)
>> e89da3_266b
>>
>>  ✗ #testValueWithinTimingRepeat (3004ms)
>>
>>   Executed 3401 Tests with 5 Failures and 0 Errors in 112.13s.
>>
>> To reproduce the failed build locally, download smalltalkCI, and try to run something like:
>>
>> 	bin/smalltalkci -s Squeak-4.6 --headfull /path/to/.smalltalk.ston
>>
>> Could these test failures be nothing to do with the VM but instead to do
>> with the (growing) divergence between trunk/spur and Squeak 4.6?
>>
>> _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
>>
> No idea...
> I've downloaded a Squeak4.6-15102.image, compiled a squeak.cog.v3 on
> windows10, and the test pass...
> I will retry on other OSes this evening (the test fails on linux...).
>
>
> At least one of those failures is a timeout.  So it may just be that the
> CI box is slow.  We might cure the issues by lengthening the timeouts.  Or
> we could make them expected failures, especially if we can find out some
> way to identify that we’re running on a CI box.
>

There's something fishy...
Only the linux brand times out.
The test waits 10 times 200msec, so should last about 2s.
    [SUnitToolBuilderTests new testHandlingNotification] timeToRun.
does answer something around 2048 on macos brand, but 7706 on linux (???).

The build.itimerheartbeat brand does complete the test in about 2020ms so
it's OK.

squeak.cog.spur/build/squeak also performs the test in about 7700ms in an
updated trunk image...
So it's not just squeak.cog.v3 here...
I can only run linux thru a VM (Parallels), so if someone can confirm the
behavior on some native linux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20201026/c9cf01ca/attachment.html>