Here's what I see in the Jenkins log:
;;; Loading "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file1.lisp"
;;; Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action
but dependency (LOAD-SOURCE-OP
wasn't done yet!
;;; Loading "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file2.lisp"
;;; Compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file3.lisp.
;;; Finished compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file3.lisp.
;;; Compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file4.lisp.
;;; Finished compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file4.lisp.
TEST ABORTED: These two expressions fail comparison with EQUAL:
TEST-PACKAGE::*FILE4* evaluates to T
NIL evaluates to NIL
IIUC from what Fare said earlier, this would indicate that there's a bug
in ASDF behavior on MKCL here, because file4.fas should not be loaded
TBH, I have no idea why this happened for me in Jenkins, but not when I
Note the warning -- this is a warning message I'm coming to really hate:
1. it has data that looks almost like a type error. If `NIL` is OK for
the `PLAN`, then we should have a conditional in the warning format
string that just prunes the plan out of the warning message if it's
`NIL`. If `NIL` is *not* ok, then we need to explain that it isn't, and
there should probably be a different and earlier warning.
2. It assumes that the user will understand what a `just-done stamp` is,
and how it fits into a plan. This really asks too much.
3. It doesn't tell the user what's really wrong. And, I suspect in this
case it's sort of ASDF's fault, and it's sort of the fault of the system
-- the system has a bad name (it is a sub-system without a "slashy
name"), and somehow when we have that, we get these warnings. If that's
the case, then we should give the user the information about the root
cause and suppress these warnings, which are just noise.
On 19 Feb 2018, at 19:07, Jean-Claude Beaudoin wrote:
If you let me know what Jenkins happens to be then I may be able to
look at the problem.
I have been planning an update to the latest ASDF for my upcoming
release of MKCL 1.1.11,
so I may as well squeeze that question in.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info>
The failure isn't replicable to me, which bothers me some. I suspect
means that it's having side-effects in the file system that aren't
cleaned up. I'm eyeballing the test and it *does* affect the
and it does not remove the files (really symlinks) it creates. So ...
potentially there could be insufficiently controlled side-effects
me a transient failure? I don't know. I suppose it's also possible
does something with the filesystem that Jenkins isn't allowed to do,
that's why I got the Jenkins-only failure. But that explanation
explain why I get failure only with Jenkins *and* MKCL.
On 19 Feb 2018, at 16:43, Faré wrote:
test-multiple works for me with asdf 188.8.131.52, mkcl 184.108.40.206-2dbfa99
on Linux 4.14 x64.
This is all long gone from my mental cache. The test could be better
commented, but I suppose the purpose can be extracted by looking at
its history then looking at related commits, bugs, bug fix commits,
mailing-list messages, etc. A starting point:
git log --stat test/test-multiple.*
Apparently, it tests support for what is now considered misnamed
secondary systems, but was once a kind-of-supported feature, seen in
the wild, with nasty consequences sometimes (e.g. infinite loop with
quicklisp until relevant fix).
A variable not being rebound is a test that a file hasn't been
I'd rather not add comments, but I'll review them gladly.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
Everyone hates a martyr. It's no wonder martyrs were burnt at a
— E.W. Howe, "Country Town Sayings", p.7
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
Would you please add some comments to test-multiple? I got a failure
that with MKCL under jenkins on linux, but cannot replicate that
running it myself.
There's no comment saying what this is supposed to test, other than
name, which suggests that it's about testing where there are ...
systems defined (incorrectly) in one .asd file? the same systems
multiple .asd files?
The test checks to make sure (I believe) that a variable is not
we ask to reload a system, but not how this pertains to correct ASDF
Robert P. Goldman
Smart Information Flow Technologies (d/b/a SIFT, LLC)
319 N. First Ave., Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Voice: (612) 326-3934