[perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri Aug 15 18:33:59 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I, for one, find myself going to the Smolder site much more often than our 'official' site these days -- precisely because I can spot new test failures more quickly there and jump in with a quick fix. As I did just now: I refreshed my Smolder page, saw that the ratio was 99.99%, clicked on this TAP: http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/3959/436 Did an 'svn up', fixed the file in question, committed. http://www.parrotvm.org/svn/parrot/revision?rev=30267 All within 5 minutes as I was on my way out the door.
[perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #57942] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=57942 #not ok 1 - Line length ok # Failed test 'Line length ok' # at t/codingstd/linelength.t line 80. # Lines longer than coding standard limit (100 columns) in 1 files: # /home/smoke/parrot/compilers/pirc/new/pirsymbol.c:256: 104 cols # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. This causes -all- smolder reports to be marked as failures. Regards. -- Will Coke Coleda
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 07:00 -0700, Will Coleda wrote: #not ok 1 - Line length ok # Failed test 'Line length ok' # at t/codingstd/linelength.t line 80. # Lines longer than coding standard limit (100 columns) in 1 files: # /home/smoke/parrot/compilers/pirc/new/pirsymbol.c:256: 104 cols # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. This causes -all- smolder reports to be marked as failures. Perhaps 'make codetest' or 'make codingstd_tests' should be an automated commit hurdle? Meaning, SVN won't allow the commit if those don't pass. (Before anyone asks, I do not know how to write SVN commit hurdles. I just seem to recall they are possible.) -'f
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Geoffrey Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 07:00 -0700, Will Coleda wrote: #not ok 1 - Line length ok # Failed test 'Line length ok' # at t/codingstd/linelength.t line 80. # Lines longer than coding standard limit (100 columns) in 1 files: # /home/smoke/parrot/compilers/pirc/new/pirsymbol.c:256: 104 cols # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. This causes -all- smolder reports to be marked as failures. Perhaps 'make codetest' or 'make codingstd_tests' should be an automated commit hurdle? Meaning, SVN won't allow the commit if those don't pass. Assuming we actually want to be running these tests all the time, and having codingstd violations 'break the build', this is not an unreasonable approach.[1] (Before anyone asks, I do not know how to write SVN commit hurdles. I just seem to recall they are possible.) ISTR our current hosting providers would like to avoid such things, but that's an understanding from many years ago. -'f [1] I don't think that's the way to go. -- Will Coke Coleda
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 11:57 -0400, Will Coleda wrote: This causes -all- smolder reports to be marked as failures. Perhaps 'make codetest' or 'make codingstd_tests' should be an automated commit hurdle? Meaning, SVN won't allow the commit if those don't pass. Assuming we actually want to be running these tests all the time, and having codingstd violations 'break the build', this is not an unreasonable approach.[1] ISTR our current hosting providers would like to avoid such things, but that's an understanding from many years ago. [1] I don't think that's the way to go. It seems then that we have two remaining options: 1. Don't run codingstd as part of smolder. 2. Differentiate a codingstd failure and a real failure in smolder. Which one of these are you proposing? -'f
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
From: Geoffrey Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:07:46 -0700 . . . It seems then that we have two remaining options: 1. Don't run codingstd as part of smolder. 2. Differentiate a codingstd failure and a real failure in smolder. . . . Seems to me that codingstd should give the same result on all platforms. If so, it ought to be run separately, on a single designated platform. -- Bob Rogers http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Friday 15 August 2008 09:07:46 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: It seems then that we have two remaining options: 1. Don't run codingstd as part of smolder. 2. Differentiate a codingstd failure and a real failure in smolder. Which one of these are you proposing? +1 to either. #1 seems slightly easier (no changes to Smolder). -- c
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Bob Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Geoffrey Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:07:46 -0700 . . . It seems then that we have two remaining options: 1. Don't run codingstd as part of smolder. 2. Differentiate a codingstd failure and a real failure in smolder. . . . Seems to me that codingstd should give the same result on all platforms. If so, it ought to be run separately, on a single designated platform. true only if platform-specific generated files are excluded from coding standards checking. i'm not certain (without looking) whether this is the case. ~jerry
Re: [perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
chromatic wrote: On Friday 15 August 2008 09:07:46 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: 1. Don't run codingstd as part of smolder. +1 to either. #1 seems slightly easier (no changes to Smolder). Yeah, it would just need a change to the make smolder_test target, which currently just uses t/harness and runs all of the tests. It would be really easy to just run --core-tests or to create a new option to t/harness. -- Michael Peters Plus Three, LP
[perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
fixed in r30252.
[perl #57942] [BUG] Smolder failure [linelength, compilers/pirc]
On Fri Aug 15 07:00:38 2008, coke wrote: #not ok 1 - Line length ok # Failed test 'Line length ok' # at t/codingstd/linelength.t line 80. # Lines longer than coding standard limit (100 columns) in 1 files: # /home/smoke/parrot/compilers/pirc/new/pirsymbol.c:256: 104 cols # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. This causes -all- smolder reports to be marked as failures. Coke et. al., May I offer a dissenting opinion? It ain't broke, so we shouldn't fix it. Just now, I took a look at http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/smoke_reports/8 and requested the 30 most recent reports. I saw that some reports from earlier today were passing 99.99% of the tests and that the failing test, as you reported, was this coding standards test. Later in the day, the test was fixed, so most reports (on well functioning OSes) resumed 100% passing. Is that a bad thing? Isn't that exactly what we want out of our Smolder tests (and our other smoke tests as well)? So what if a coding standard test is less important than a core test; do we want to find out about it quickly or not? And I, for one, find myself going to the Smolder site much more often than our 'official' site these days -- precisely because I can spot new test failures more quickly there and jump in with a quick fix. You don't have to plow thru year-old tests on OSes that no one is actively developing on, as you do at smoke.parrotcode.org. Now, we might want to permit *individual* smolder testers have the option of submitting, say, only 'make coretest'. We can do that now at smoke.parrotcode.org. But I would like to see the *default* setting for Smolder remain 'make test'. Thank you very much. kid51
