Tim Peters wrote: > [Georg Brandl] >> Well, it's tempting to let the buildbots run the tests for you <wink> >> Honestly, I didn't realize that doctest relies on traceback. Running >> the test suite takes over half an hour on this box, so I decided to >> take a chance. > > Nobody ever expects that a checkin will break tests, so merely > expecting that a checkin won't break tests is not sufficient reason to > skip running tests. You made a checkin that broke every buildbot > slave we have, and I suggest you're taking a wrong lesson from that > ;-)
No objection, mylord ;) > Do release-build tests without -uall take over half an hour on your > box? Running that much is "good enough" precaution. Even (on boxes > with makefiles) running "make quicktest" is mounds better than doing > no testing. All the cases of massive buildbot test breakage we've > seen this week would have been caught by doing just that much before > checkin. Until now, I've always run with -uall. Running "make quicktest" is fine, but if the buildbots starts failing with -uall afterwards, no one will accept that as an excuse ;) > When previously-passing buildbots start failing, it at least stops me > cold, and (I hope) stops others too. Sometimes it's unavoidable. For > example, I spent almost all my Python time Monday repairing a variety > of new test failures unique to the OpenBSD buildbot (that platform is > apparently unique in assigning addresses with "the sign bit" set, > which broke all sorts of tests after someone changed id() to always > return a positive value). That's fine -- it happens. It's the > seemingly routine practice this week of checking in changes that break > the tests everywhere that destroys productivity without good cause. I see, and I'm sorry I was part of it. > Relatedly, if someone makes a checkin and sees that it breaks lots of > buildbot runs, they should revert the patch themself instead of > waiting for someone else to get so frustrated that they do it. > Reverting is very easy with svn, but people are reluctant to revert > someone else's checkin. The buildbot system is useless so long as the > tests fail, and having the tests pass isn't optional. For excuse, I posted here immediately after I saw that the tests failed, asking whether to change doctest or revert my change. >> I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module should be >> rewritten to match the interpreter behavior. > > No argument from me about that. Fine. There's another one, python.org/sf/1326077, which looks suspicious to me too. Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com