[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:32:17 +0100 (CET) |
> In the past month, I've devoted many hours to testing my
> submissions, but clearly the effort is not achieving the goal.
Don't worry. Some of the problems are very hard to catch and only
show up under certain circumstances.
> I request some help to understand how I can improve my pre-commit
> testing procedures, and where my responsibilities begin and end.
IMHO, you did well.
> I enjoy having my commits reverted as much as others enjoy having
> their build broken--it is a big waste of pro-bono time--so I want to
> understand the issues clearly.
There is no waste of time, since the reversion is only temporary –
your patches are definitely not rejected. However, small amendments
are apparently necessary to make them work everywhere, and the
problems were caught unusually late.
> And days before that happens, patches are announced as having been
> tested with the feedback "Passes make. make check and a full make
> doc." The evidence suggests that that does not include running
> autogen, otherwise it should have caught the problem with "tidy"
> that my own testing failed to catch.
Yes. A full run of everything is not always executed.
> Should things such as missing optional programs and new-ish Python
> syntax be rejected at either of these stages? If not, then it would
> seem to fall to the submitter to set up an alternate development
> environment with Python 2.4, GCC 3.4, and similarly aged versions of
> other tools, and run additional tests in that environment.
A good test for those things IMHO is to clone the gub repository, then
saying
make lilypond
The first run takes many hours to download and build the necessary
infrastructure; later on it's much faster. Somewhere in the
lilypond-devel mailing list archive you can find hints how to make gub
use your own clone of the git repository so that you can directly test
patches; ditto for hints that explain what created stuff in gub should
be manually removed in case you want to test a full lilypond build
(without unnecessarily rebuilding the gub infrastructure).
Apropos gub: Inspite of David K's reversions there is still a (new?)
bug in `output-distance.py' (I think): The call
PYTHONPATH=[...] \
PATH=[...] \
python2 test-lily/rsync-test.py \
--version-file=... \
--output-distance=.../scripts/build/output-distance.py \
--test-dir=uploads/webtest \
--gub-target-dir=...
in the `unlocked-test-export' rule fails with
[...]
entering directory .../gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1
invoking
gs -sDEVICE=png16m \
[...] \
-slilypond-datadir=.../gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/share/lilypond/current
\
[...] \
rest-positioning.eps \
-c quit
Error: /undefinedfilename in --file--
Operand stack:
(.../gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf/emmentaler-20.otf)
(r)
Execution stack: [...]
Last OS error: No such file or directory
because the `share' tree present in
gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.19.83-1/
is not created by the script in
gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/
I seem to remember that this has worked the last time I worked on gub
(in January) ...
Werner
- make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, James, 2019/10/26
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/26
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, James, 2019/10/27
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, David Kastrup, 2019/10/27
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Werner LEMBERG, 2019/10/27
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, David Kastrup, 2019/10/27
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/27
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Carl Sorensen, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Werner LEMBERG, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Werner LEMBERG, 2019/10/29
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/29
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/31
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, David Kastrup, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, Dan Eble, 2019/10/28
- Re: make check is broken (again) - patch testing seeming to taking more of my time than I like, David Kastrup, 2019/10/28