Re: Git Bug Report: bisect run failed to locate the right commit, detail testing
Hi, On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:49 AM, 李祐棠 r01942...@ntu.edu.tw wrote: Dear git developers: Allow me to describe the testing situation more detail: First the testing repository is in https://github.com/gawel/pyquery my git version is 1.9.2 running on Archlinux 3.14.2 I try to track issue #74(which is closed now) It give result False/True in version 1.2.8(good), and result False/False in version 1.2.9(bad). The testing script are manualscript.py and autoscript.py Both of them implement the test case describe in issue #74. Th only difference is that autoscript.py call sys.exit() to return the testing value. First we test with git-bisect manually with manualscript.py: The testing result is shown in 'bisectmanual_manualscript' Then we test with git-bisect manually with autoscript.py This time we echo $? every time we execute autoscript.py, and the testing result is shown in 'bisectmanual_autoscript' In both situation the script give the same result, and the return value of autoscript.py is correct, too. However, if we use git-bisect-run with autoscript.py, it will show a different result. The testing result is shown in 'bisectrun'. The log shows that autoscript.py output False/False all the way. As Mr. Couder said, there is some checkout commit that autoscript.py and manualscript.py give different result, for example commit d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76. If I checkout this commit outside bisect state and run manualscript.py and autoscript.py, they both give False/True result. So, I guess there is some problem in the checkout procedure in bisect-run, so the commit didn't successfully checkout. I don't think so. I tried to run the following command many times in a row: for rev in bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d b81a9e8a2b0d48ec0c64d6de14293dd4a680a20b d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76; do git checkout $rev; python -m pyquery.autoscript; done And here is the log: $ for rev in bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d b81a9e8a2b0d48ec0c64d6de14293dd4a680a20b d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76; do git checkout $rev; python -m pyquery.autoscript; done Note: checking out 'bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d'. You are in 'detached HEAD' state. You can look around, make experimental changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this state without impacting any branches by performing another checkout. If you want to create a new branch to retain commits you create, you may do so (now or later) by using -b with the checkout command again. Example: git checkout -b new_branch_name HEAD is now at bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) False False Previous HEAD position was bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) HEAD is now at b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 False False Previous HEAD position was b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 HEAD is now at d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort False True $ for rev in bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d b81a9e8a2b0d48ec0c64d6de14293dd4a680a20b d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76; do git checkout $rev; python -m pyquery.autoscript; done Previous HEAD position was d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort HEAD is now at bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) False False Previous HEAD position was bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) HEAD is now at b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 False False Previous HEAD position was b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 HEAD is now at d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort False True $ for rev in bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d b81a9e8a2b0d48ec0c64d6de14293dd4a680a20b d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76; do git checkout $rev; python -m pyquery.autoscript; done Previous HEAD position was d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort HEAD is now at bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) False False Previous HEAD position was bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) HEAD is now at b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 False False Previous HEAD position was b81a9e8... fixed issue #9 HEAD is now at d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort False False $ for rev in bc1b16509cec70de7a32354026443fca777f4d7d b81a9e8a2b0d48ec0c64d6de14293dd4a680a20b d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76; do git checkout $rev; python -m pyquery.autoscript; done Previous HEAD position was d22159b... test pseudo classes; documentation effort HEAD is now at bc1b165... created a .gitignore file(which is almost a copy of .hgignore with some minor changes and comments) False False Previous HEAD position was
Git Bug Report: bisect run failed to locate the right commit
Dear Git developers: I just found a suspicious bug that might cause by git-bisect run. Version: The git version is 1.9.2, running on Archlinux 3.14.2 The step to produce the error: Here is the repository I participate: https://github.com/gawel/pyquery It got a issue #74, that gives a wrong result in version 1.2.8 and this is fixed in 1.2.9 Here is the manual test script I use is manualscript.py: I use git bisect manually, search from 1.2.9(bad) to 1.2.8(good), I locate the commit that fixes this issue. The running log is attached in this file(manual). However if I use the automatic script git bisect run with the script auto script: It will give a wrong answer, the log file is also attached(auto) I wonder there might be some bugs in bisect run, that give the different result. The bisect run give the wrong result, and manually there is no error in bisect The test step is a little complicated, and I have to compress the test script and result in tar since mail server think the test code as spam. it's very sorry to bother you. Sincerely YodaLee 20140827 testfile.tar Description: testfile.tar
Re: Git Bug Report: bisect run failed to locate the right commit
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:42:45PM +, 李祐棠 wrote: Here is the manual test script I use is manualscript.py: I use git bisect manually, search from 1.2.9(bad) to 1.2.8(good), I locate the commit that fixes this issue. The running log is attached in this file(manual). However if I use the automatic script git bisect run with the script auto script: It will give a wrong answer, the log file is also attached(auto) When you get to 300cd08225, your manual bisect shows this as bad: Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635] fixed issue #19 $ ./manualscript.py False False $ git bisect bad When you hit the same commit with your automatic test, the output from your script is different: Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635] fixed issue #19 running ./autoscript.py False True which would yield git bisect good according to the simplified scripts you sent. I suspect your problem is in the test script. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Git Bug Report: bisect run failed to locate the right commit
Hi, On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:42 PM, 李祐棠 r01942...@ntu.edu.tw wrote: Dear Git developers: I just found a suspicious bug that might cause by git-bisect run. Version: The git version is 1.9.2, running on Archlinux 3.14.2 The step to produce the error: Here is the repository I participate: https://github.com/gawel/pyquery It got a issue #74, that gives a wrong result in version 1.2.8 and this is fixed in 1.2.9 Here is the manual test script I use is manualscript.py: I use git bisect manually, search from 1.2.9(bad) to 1.2.8(good), I locate the commit that fixes this issue. The running log is attached in this file(manual). However if I use the automatic script git bisect run with the script auto script: It will give a wrong answer, the log file is also attached(auto) Your manual log contains: Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635] fixed issue #19 $ ./manualscript.py False False While your auto log contains: Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635] fixed issue #19 running ./autoscript.py False True So for the commit 300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635 it looks like your manualscript.py and your autoscript.py don't return the same result. Could you check that by doing something like: $ git checkout -b testscripts 300cd0822505a4bd308acd1520ff3ef0f20f8635 $ ./manualscript.py $ echo manualscript.py exit code: $? $ ./autoscript.py $ echo autoscript.py exit code: $? ? By the way you can get a better bisect log by running git bisect log after your bisection. Best, Christian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Git Bug Report: bisect run failed to locate the right commit, detail testing
Dear git developers: Allow me to describe the testing situation more detail: First the testing repository is in https://github.com/gawel/pyquery my git version is 1.9.2 running on Archlinux 3.14.2 I try to track issue #74(which is closed now) It give result False/True in version 1.2.8(good), and result False/False in version 1.2.9(bad). The testing script are manualscript.py and autoscript.py Both of them implement the test case describe in issue #74. Th only difference is that autoscript.py call sys.exit() to return the testing value. First we test with git-bisect manually with manualscript.py: The testing result is shown in 'bisectmanual_manualscript' Then we test with git-bisect manually with autoscript.py This time we echo $? every time we execute autoscript.py, and the testing result is shown in 'bisectmanual_autoscript' In both situation the script give the same result, and the return value of autoscript.py is correct, too. However, if we use git-bisect-run with autoscript.py, it will show a different result. The testing result is shown in 'bisectrun'. The log shows that autoscript.py output False/False all the way. As Mr. Couder said, there is some checkout commit that autoscript.py and manualscript.py give different result, for example commit d22159bb32510e9eacf6c5c2408a79792e99fe76. If I checkout this commit outside bisect state and run manualscript.py and autoscript.py, they both give False/True result. So, I guess there is some problem in the checkout procedure in bisect-run, so the commit didn't successfully checkout. ps. I found this time the bisect run give me another version of output compared to the last version I sent to everybody OAO. That is weird. Thank for helping. Sincerely YodaLee 20140828 testfile.tar Description: testfile.tar
