On Sep 20, 9:41 am, Mitesh Patel <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't, unfortunately. Does anyone have suggestions? Both of the > failed tests appear to involve pickling.
Yes. And Cython-code. And the str() function applied to weird objects. > > > The explanation is that parallel testing is unreliable. People are > > working on improving it. > > According to Johan's post, the tests were run with './sage -testall', > which uses the serial runner sage-test. > > Were other CPU-intensive processes running at the time? I don't quite remember. I might very well have run a Sage test-suite on my developer-installation of Sage (whole other root directory) during the (lengthy) testall. But the testall definitely only claimed one processor on my machine. Come to think of it, I probably copied the ~2.4GB freshly compiled Sage installation directory to another dir for my developer version during testing; that would cause a lot of blocking I/O. > > > I've had one example of where a test was reported to fail, but the log > > showed it passed. > > > It makes me wonder if there are cases where a test fails, but it does > > not get reported properly. That would be the most scary thing. That would indeed be very scary. Just the bug you mention could make automated scripts or unwary users deem everything to have passed. Johan -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
