Hi, Can you please share the link with us, personally I want to wait until that patch goes in.
Thanks! BogDan. > >T here is a fix coming for the bic test. (thanks Sergio) Not sure why it did >not > trigger a failure before for the commit that had the actual changes that > cause > these (false) warnings... > > Laszlo > > ________________________________________ > > From: development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=digia....@qt-project.org > [development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=digia....@qt-project.org] on behalf of > BogDan > [bog_dan...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:01 AM > To: Rutledge Shawn; development > Subject: Re: [Development] CI broken again? > >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm trying to push this patch: >> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,79826 but CI doesn't like me. >>> >>> Because CI seems to be based on luck, can CI folks give us a daily > CI >> horoscopes forecast on this matter? E.g. if you are not born on the end of > March >> and you don't have have only two android pending patches, then you are > in >> luck ! :) >> >> It's normal; if your patch cannot cause the failure then keep staging > until >> it finally goes in. >> >> Sometimes though, we try to fix the autotests that fail the most > frequently. If >> you can't reproduce the failure on your own machine, with the same OS, > often >> the cause seems to be heavy multi-tasking on the CI machines, which will > slow >> down timing-sensitive tests to the point of failure. But even that is hard > to >> prove, since CI is a black box to most of us; and even if you get access to > a CI >> machine to run tests on, they won't fail because it's not > multi-tasking >> so heavily at that time. (And if it was, you'd have a problem to do >> anything interactively anyway.) You also can't add qDebugs or other > types >> of verbosity to tests to try to debug CI failures because reviewers will > say >> that tests should not be verbose. >> > > > Well, I pushed again the submit button (after I said a little pray) and it > fails in the same please (it seems God doesn't like me anymore). I really > don't believe it has something to do with the heavy multi-tasking on the CI > machines (or with God) ... to me it looks that the test is broken or > something > went in that make it breaks every time, but I wonder how that something got > in, > in the first place... > > BogDan. > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
