You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> on 2015/02/11 19:40:54 UTC
XPASS in fs-test with BDB
I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk:
$ cat fails.log
[[[
XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache fail in FSFS]]
]]]
Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a
fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this
test case?
-- Brane
Re: XPASS in fs-test with BDB
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 11.02.2015 20:07, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 11.02.2015 20:03, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk:
> >>>
> >>> $ cat fails.log
> >>> [[[
> >>> XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache
> fail in FSFS]]
> >>> ]]]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a
> >>> fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this
> >>> test case?
> >> The test shows a bug in FSFS, on that backend the test will XFAIL.
> >> There is no corresponding bug in BDB of FSX so there the test is an
> >> XPASS. XPASS/WIMP appears to be the best way to describe a C test that
> >> behaves that way. I suppose XFAIL/WIMP might also work. I don't think
> >> there is an easy way to mark a C test as PASS on some backends and FAIL
> >> on others.
> > You're right, there's not. OK, as long as this is expected, fine.
> >
> > Of course, we can always invent new predicate macros for the C tests ...
> > I'll see if I can come up with an FS-type-aware predicate.
>
>
> r1659101 introduces run-time predicates to the test suite
> infrastructure. We used to have only compile-time conditions, and that's
> clearly not enough to test the FS type, which is a run-time property.
> That test now is now marked as XFAIL, unless the FS type is not FSFS, in
> which case it's a PASS.
>
I was about trying to return SVN_ERR_TEST_SKIPPED
as a stop-gap. But you solution is clearly better.
-- Stefan^2.
Re: XPASS in fs-test with BDB
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 11.02.2015 20:07, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 11.02.2015 20:03, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk:
>>>
>>> $ cat fails.log
>>> [[[
>>> XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache fail in FSFS]]
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a
>>> fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this
>>> test case?
>> The test shows a bug in FSFS, on that backend the test will XFAIL.
>> There is no corresponding bug in BDB of FSX so there the test is an
>> XPASS. XPASS/WIMP appears to be the best way to describe a C test that
>> behaves that way. I suppose XFAIL/WIMP might also work. I don't think
>> there is an easy way to mark a C test as PASS on some backends and FAIL
>> on others.
> You're right, there's not. OK, as long as this is expected, fine.
>
> Of course, we can always invent new predicate macros for the C tests ...
> I'll see if I can come up with an FS-type-aware predicate.
r1659101 introduces run-time predicates to the test suite
infrastructure. We used to have only compile-time conditions, and that's
clearly not enough to test the FS type, which is a run-time property.
That test now is now marked as XFAIL, unless the FS type is not FSFS, in
which case it's a PASS.
-- Brane
Re: XPASS in fs-test with BDB
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 11.02.2015 20:03, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes:
>
>> I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk:
>>
>> $ cat fails.log
>> [[[
>> XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache fail in FSFS]]
>> ]]]
>>
>>
>> Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a
>> fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this
>> test case?
> The test shows a bug in FSFS, on that backend the test will XFAIL.
> There is no corresponding bug in BDB of FSX so there the test is an
> XPASS. XPASS/WIMP appears to be the best way to describe a C test that
> behaves that way. I suppose XFAIL/WIMP might also work. I don't think
> there is an easy way to mark a C test as PASS on some backends and FAIL
> on others.
You're right, there's not. OK, as long as this is expected, fine.
Of course, we can always invent new predicate macros for the C tests ...
I'll see if I can come up with an FS-type-aware predicate.
-- Brane
Re: XPASS in fs-test with BDB
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes:
> I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk:
>
> $ cat fails.log
> [[[
> XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache fail in FSFS]]
> ]]]
>
>
> Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a
> fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this
> test case?
The test shows a bug in FSFS, on that backend the test will XFAIL.
There is no corresponding bug in BDB of FSX so there the test is an
XPASS. XPASS/WIMP appears to be the best way to describe a C test that
behaves that way. I suppose XFAIL/WIMP might also work. I don't think
there is an easy way to mark a C test as PASS on some backends and FAIL
on others.
--
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*