(Sorry Pavel, missed your lldb-dev post on this. See my comments there. I'll pick it up there).
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > The concept is not there to protect against timeouts, which are caused > by processes being too slow, for these we have been increasing > timeouts where necessary. This is there to guard against hangs in the > test suite (so the name might not be most fortunate, it would be > something like "excpected deadlock"), where increasing the timeout > does not help. E.g. TestEvents takes 4 seconds normally, but it does > deadlock quite often even with the 4m timeout, as you can see from the > redness. I have been trying to fix these, and the number are going > down, but I just don't have enough time to address them all (for now). > > I don't find the concept per se that ridiculous, I think it is a good > idea to be able to mark any failure mode as "expected", to prevent > long red streaks on the buildbot (btw, I haven't checked, is it > possible to XFAIL crashes now?), although the current code that does > that is horrible. > > > On 11 December 2015 at 17:24, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (And by ridiculous, I mean the idea of having something time out, and > having > > that be an expected condition just to keep the test red, is a heavy > > indication that something else needs to change --- feels like a bandaid > on > > top of a bad patch job --- something I think we want to address at a more > > holistic level, which hopefully the low load test pass will help. I > think > > increasing the timeout would be a better way to handle that in the short > > term). > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I think this (the expected timeout) will go away once I'm done with the > >> low-load, single-worker follow up pass, fwiw. If that is not the case, > we > >> should be disabling tests that intermittently timeout for reasons other > than > >> high load. > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> "Expected timeout" - that concept is ridiculous. > >>> > >>> Why not increase the timeout? > >>> > >>> -Todd > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits > >>> <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Author: labath > >>>> Date: Fri Dec 11 05:05:24 2015 > >>>> New Revision: 255335 > >>>> > >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=255335&view=rev > >>>> Log: > >>>> Revert "Turn on new test summary results by default." > >>>> > >>>> The new test summary formatter does not honor the "expected timeout" > >>>> markings, which makes our > >>>> buildbots all red. I'm switching it off by default until we figure > out a > >>>> way to make this work. > >>>> > >>>> Modified: > >>>> lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py > >>>> lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/result_formatter.py > >>>> > >>>> Modified: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py > >>>> URL: > >>>> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py?rev=255335&r1=255334&r2=255335&view=diff > >>>> > >>>> > ============================================================================== > >>>> --- lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py (original) > >>>> +++ lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py Fri Dec 11 > >>>> 05:05:24 2015 > >>>> @@ -407,12 +407,6 @@ def parseOptionsAndInitTestdirs(): > >>>> if args.results_formatter_options: > >>>> configuration.results_formatter_options = > >>>> args.results_formatter_options > >>>> > >>>> - # Default to using the BasicResultsFormatter if no formatter is > >>>> specified > >>>> - # and we're not a test inferior. > >>>> - if not args.inferior and configuration.results_formatter_name is > >>>> None: > >>>> - configuration.results_formatter_name = ( > >>>> - > >>>> "lldbsuite.test.basic_results_formatter.BasicResultsFormatter") > >>>> - > >>>> if args.lldb_platform_name: > >>>> configuration.lldb_platform_name = args.lldb_platform_name > >>>> if args.lldb_platform_url: > >>>> > >>>> Modified: > lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/result_formatter.py > >>>> URL: > >>>> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/result_formatter.py?rev=255335&r1=255334&r2=255335&view=diff > >>>> > >>>> > ============================================================================== > >>>> --- lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/result_formatter.py > >>>> (original) > >>>> +++ lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/result_formatter.py Fri > >>>> Dec 11 05:05:24 2015 > >>>> @@ -683,9 +683,8 @@ class ResultsFormatter(object): > >>>> > >>>> if event_type == "terminate": > >>>> self.terminate_called = True > >>>> - elif event_type in [ > >>>> - EventBuilder.TYPE_TEST_RESULT, > >>>> - EventBuilder.TYPE_JOB_RESULT]: > >>>> + elif (event_type == EventBuilder.TYPE_TEST_RESULT or > >>>> + event_type == EventBuilder.TYPE_JOB_RESULT): > >>>> # Keep track of event counts per test/job result > status > >>>> type. > >>>> # The only job (i.e. inferior process) results that > >>>> make it > >>>> # here are ones that cannot be remapped to the most > >>>> recently > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> lldb-commits mailing list > >>>> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org > >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -Todd > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -Todd > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Todd > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
