On Sun Jun 28 12:01:16 2015, [email protected] wrote: > On Tue Jun 23 03:03:26 2015, [email protected] wrote: > > [...] > > > Just to mention... > > > > > > Spectest 'S17-supply/start.t' fails on my system. > > > > > > $ uname -a > > > Linux h03-fedora 3.19.8-100.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:08:50 > > > UTC 2015 > > > x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > $ perl6 -v > > > This is perl6 version 2015.06-22-g70c5bc5 built on MoarVM version > > > 2015.06-16-g46e941c > > > > > > > > > $ prove -v -e perl6 t/spec/S17-supply/start.t > > > t/spec/S17-supply/start.t .. > > > 1..9 > > > ok 1 - can not be called as a class method > > > ok 2 - Did we get a master Supply? > > > ok 3 - Did we get a starter Supply? > > > ok 4 - Did we get a Tap > > > ok 5 - did we get a supply? > > > ok 6 - did we get a tap? > > > ok 7 - did we get two extra supplies? > > > ok 8 - did we get two extra taps? > > > not ok 9 - did we get the other original value > > > > > > # Failed test 'did we get the other original value' > > > # at t/spec/S17-supply/start.t line 34 > > > # expected: [1, 1] > > > # got: [1] > > > # Looks like you failed 1 test of 9 > > > Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) > > > Failed 1/9 subtests > > > > > > Test Summary Report > > > ------------------- > > > t/spec/S17-supply/start.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 9 Failed: 1) > > > Failed test: 9 > > > Non-zero exit status: 1 > > > Files=1, Tests=9, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.27 > > > cusr > > > 0.08 > > > csys = 0.37 CPU) > > > Result: FAIL > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Marcel > > Thanks for the report. Actually it has been noted before that the > (currently) last test in S17-supply/start.t fails occasionally (cmp. > http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2015-02-08#i_10078057 or > https://github.com/perl6/roast/commit/ee6df08125). > > There are a few of those "flapping" tests, which pass most of the > time, but not always. However, I have updated the subject of this > ticket and we'll keep it open until the underlying problem is fixed. > Since this ticket was last considered, many stability fixes have been made, and so far as I know all concurrency tests are now stable. I've not seen this particular one fail in a while; I also just did 100 runs of it on a loaded system and it passed every time. So, unless we see it fail again, I think we can consider this one resolved.
/jnthn
