Perhaps you need to find a minion to do these changes for you then or read up on cmake and/or put these changes through review, because for KCrash you also disabled and unrelated test :|
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:20 AM Harald Sitter <sit...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > Wouldn't the more appropriate workaround then be to disable the test on > > windows? > > If one had the appropriate knowledge of CMake to do so, quite possibly. > > Given that I don't however, and others haven't made the necessary > changes (and nobody has taken action when I have mentioned these tests > as causing issues) disabling the tests everywhere is the simplest path > forward and allows the CI system to operate correctly for everyone > rather than be disrupted by these two offending tests. > > Cheers, > Ben > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:57 AM Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:53 PM David Edmundson > > > <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Given kcrashtest passes locally, can you please confirm that by > > > > "remove" you mean disable and not remove. > > > > > > I mean remove. > > > > > > This test is highly dangerous and enters into a fork loop on Windows, > > > necessitating use of an administrator level console prompt to recover > > > the system. > > > Fortunately the grand-parent process terminates after it's child has > > > successfully forked, which is the only thing stopping this test from > > > being a fork bomb and totally taking down the system. > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ben
