On 2011.11.15 1:14 AM, Buddy Burden wrote:
> Okay, just to follow-up in case anyone cared what the resolution on
> this one was, changing the loop full of ok()s to one giant pass() or
> fail() per loop fixed _everything_. Plus it runs a lot faster now. I
> know I've seen test suites that do thous
Guys,
Okay, just to follow-up in case anyone cared what the resolution on
this one was, changing the loop full of ok()s to one giant pass() or
fail() per loop fixed _everything_. Plus it runs a lot faster now. I
know I've seen test suites that do thousands and thousands of tests,
but they must b
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 08:15:59PM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> David,
> > Contact the individual testers, I guess.
> I'm not sure what to say though ... "hey, dude, your automated testing
> is being rude to my tests, so go fix that?" I mean, I wouldn't put it
> that way, obviously, but i can't he
Leon,
> Hmmm. Wait status 139 means it had a segfault and coredumped.
That's probably because it ran out of memory, I'm guessing.
-- Buddy
David,
>> I guess I'm not sure what to do here. What do other folks advise?
>
> Contact the individual testers, I guess.
I'm not sure what to say though ... "hey, dude, your automated testing
is being rude to my tests, so go fix that?" I mean, I wouldn't put it
that way, obviously, but i can't
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Buddy Burden wrote:
> Okay, this is addressing the "signal 9" ones. And I'm pursuing the
> "out of memory" ones. Does anyone have any ideas about the "no plan
> in output" ones? Remembering that this is using the latest versions
> of Test::More and Test::Harness?
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:48:43AM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> David,
> >> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
> >> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks hanging around actually _watching_ the
> >> tests run and killing them when they take too long.
> > No, but there are
David,
>> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
>> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks hanging around actually _watching_ the
>> tests run and killing them when they take too long.
>
> No, but there are testers who have watchdog processes to kill off
> anything that runs
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 06:17:37PM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> Leon,
> >>> *** Signal 9
> > That one is obvious, it has been SIGKILLed. Probably the tester
> > thought the tests were hanging.
> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks h
Leon,
>>> *** Signal 9
>
> That one is obvious, it has been SIGKILLed. Probably the tester
> thought the tests were hanging.
Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
_that_ many CPAN Testers folks hanging around actually _watching_ the
tests run and killing them when
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Buddy Burden wrote:
>> t/rand_time.t (Wstat: 9 Tests: 1764021 Failed: 0)
>> Non-zero wait status: 9
>
>> *** Signal 9
That one is obvious, it has been SIGKILLed. Probably the tester
thought the tests were hanging.
>> t/rand_time.t (Wstat: 139 Tests: 9
Guys,
Okay, so I found a bug in this test script for a module I recently
took over. It's a test that generates random times, and it would fail
for zero seconds. But it only happened every once in a while, since
zero was only one possible value and it was only running a small(ish)
number of tests
12 matches
Mail list logo
