[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: I can't find buildbot failures related to this any longer, so I'm closing this one. -- stage: needs patch - committed/rejected status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: Luckily, the OpenBSD failures are caused by issues in libpthread. This means that some skips could be added (as for FreeBSD), but I'll open a separate issue for that. Thanks for the comments on the patch. I add two new patches that incorporate the stderr/SkipTest suggestions. Should I apply them and close this issue? -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file17334/issue8424-release26-stderr.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Changes by Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file17335/issue8424-trunk-skiptest.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: The patches look good, so yes, please apply them. As for closing the issue...if the failures are no longer happening on the buildbots, then yes :) -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: The buildbots are generally happy with the change. However, on OpenBSD test_itimer_prof fails seemingly unrelated to machine load. I'm not so familiar with the signal module, but how can the signal handlers in the tests be guaranteed to work? For example, if you set a variable inside a signal handler (self.hndl_called=True), it should be a sig_atomic_t. If you call a function, it should be listed as signal-safe ( http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_04.html ), but setitimer is not. I say this because there might be further assumptions in the tests that could generate hard to track down failures in the future. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: Committed fix (with the freebsd6 skips intact) in r80238, r80239, r80240 and r80241. David, is it intentional that py3k doesn't have the freebsd6 fixes? -- assignee: - skrah resolution: - accepted status: open - pending ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: Stefan, you move too fast! I was going to review that second patch, honest! I'm not 100% sure (David can probably confirm), but I think your sys.stdout.write should be a sys.stderr.write. -- status: pending - open ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: The Tiger buildbot triggers the message in build #31: test_signal test_itimer_virtual: timeout: likely cause: machine too slow or load too high. But build #23 is ok. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: The only reason the freebsd6 skips aren't in py3k is that I wanted to make sure they worked first, and then I was on vacation and haven't gotten to the merge yet. If you want to merge your patch before I get to it, feel free to merge mine along with yours. For 2.6 writing to stderr is indeed better (maybe even requried; I forget if the regrtest stdout check is still in 2.6...I think it probably is). For 2.7/3.x, I think you should raise a unittest.SkipTest instead, so that it will be counted as a skipped test. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment:
test_itimer_virtual assumes that a process must get 0.3s of virtual
time within 5s of real time. This is not true:
I can easily make the test fail even on a fast machine by doing
as root (do it n times for n cores):
nice -n -19 sh -c 'echo 1234^123456789 | bc'
==
FAIL: test_itimer_prof (__main__.ItimerTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File Lib/test/test_signal.py, line 401, in test_itimer_prof
self.fail('timeout waiting for sig_prof signal')
AssertionError: timeout waiting for sig_prof signal
==
FAIL: test_itimer_virtual (__main__.ItimerTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File Lib/test/test_signal.py, line 379, in test_itimer_virtual
(signal.getitimer(self.itimer),))
AssertionError: timeout waiting for sig_vtalrm signal;
signal.getitimer(self.itimer) gives: (0.200012, 0.200012)
--
nosy: +skrah
title: buildbots: test_itimer_virtual failures - Test assumptions for
test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8424
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: test_itimer_virtual assumes that a process must get 0.3s of virtual time within 5s of real time. This is not true [...] I agree it's not a good test, especially when run on machines that are heavily loaded, or on an OS running in VM. I can't really think of *any* way of reliably testing the amount of virtual time that's passed. Anyone else? How about removing just the timing part of the itimer_virtual tests? (Leaving the calls in so that the functionality does at least get exercised.) Or we could leave the timing in so that the test is still useful on an otherwise lightly-loaded machine, but don't count it as a failure if the test times out without getting a signal. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
STINNER Victor victor.stin...@haypocalc.com added the comment: I can't really think of *any* way of reliably testing the amount of virtual time that's passed. Can't we try to increase the timeout step by step? Eg. 5 sec = 10 sec, then 15 sec, etc. until the buildbots turn green? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Guilherme Polo ggp...@gmail.com added the comment: Wasn't the freebsd problem unrelated to this ? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
Stefan Krah stefan-use...@bytereef.org added the comment: Right, the skip should be left in place. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16988/issue8424-2.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue8424] Test assumptions for test_itimer_virtual and test_itimer_prof
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: Just to be clear, the freebsd6 problem was unrelated (presumably). Freebsd7 seems to be suffering from the issue discussed here. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue8424 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
