On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Krutika Dhananjay <[email protected]> wrote:
> The patch[1] that introduced tests/basic/stats-dump.t was merged in > October 2015 and > my patch underwent (and passed too![2]) centos regression tests, including > stats-dump.t on 05 June, 2017. > The only change that the test script underwent during this time was this > line in 2016, which is harmless: > > a4f84d78 (Kaleb S KEITHLEY 2016-03-15 06:16:31 -0400 17) EXPECT_WITHIN > $NFS_EXPORT_TIMEOUT "1" is_nfs_export_available > > So there was NO change that went between 5th June and the time my patch > was merged, which could have broken the test suite, that could have been > caught easily with a mere rebase? Or am I missing something here? The > problem is simply that the test script didn't fail on my patch. > It's not the test but probably something in the code which has gone in to make this test fail now. So no way it's something the developer/maintainer has to take a blame for. > > > [1] - https://review.gluster.org/12209 > [2] - https://build.gluster.org/job/centos6-regression/4897/consoleFull > > -Krutika > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Krutika, >> >> tests/basis/stats-dump.t is failing all the time and as per my initial >> analysis after https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17709/ got into the >> mainline the failures are seen and reverting this patch makes the test to >> run successfully. I do understand that the centos vote for this patch was >> green but the last run was on 5th June which was 1 month back. So some >> other changes have gone into in between which is now causing this patch to >> break the test. >> >> This makes me think as a maintainer we do need to ensure the if the >> regression vote on the patch is quite old, a rebase of the patch is must to >> be on the safer side? >> >> ~Atin >> > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
