[Development] What's New in Qt 6.5 page source is available

[Volker Hilsheimer]

Hi,


Since we often seem to struggle with populating the “What’s New” page in time 
for the first packages:

As of https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtdoc/+/417673 we now have a 
whatsnew65.qdoc file in the qtdoc repo. You can add new features immediately 
when got merged in the other submodules.


Volker

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Mårten Nordheim]

> Well, at least with qt positioning we need to handle all the cherry-picks to 
> 5.15 manually

Which is probably fine for positioning, I don't expect there to be too many 
patches getting
picked back. But for a given period I would say it's not unusual for half of the
patches going to Network to be cherry-picked.


Mårten

--

From: Ivan Solovev  
Sent: mandag 27. juni 2022 13:40
To: Mårten Nordheim ; Volker Hilsheimer 
; Macieira, Thiago 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase 
network failures)

> If it can be done with little effort, including cherry-picking fixes 
> backwards, 
> even to 5.15, then it might be something to be investigated.

Well, at least with qt positioning we need to handle all the cherry-picks to 
5.15 manually, 
because the cherry-pick bot obviously does not detect that those need to go to 
qtlocation.git repo.

So, if we split network now, we will need to care about manually picking to 
6.4, 6.3, 6.2 and 5.15.

Best regards, 
Ivan



From: Development  on behalf of 
Mårten Nordheim 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Volker Hilsheimer ; Macieira, Thiago 

Cc: mailto:development@qt-project.org 
Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase 
network failures) 
 
Hello!

While I don't necessarily object to splitting network out on a fundamental
level, I also find it to be questionable given the effort. If it can be done 
with
little effort, including cherry-picking fixes backwards, even to 5.15, then
it might be something to be investigated.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the fact that network and IO tend
to be more interconnected compared to various other parts of Qt, so
historically it may have been useful to keep those together. But it's
likely less important these days.

As for what is flaky and what is not, I'm not sure it's useful to compare.
Of course, I always notice when something I haven't remotely touched
causes my integrations to fail, and I expect it's the same for others :)

Mårten

PS. [7] from Thiago's message was not a std::filesystem issue,
it was tst_QThread crashing on exit (probably a real failure from the
integration). I have seen the filesystem issue before but it only ever
happens for the first run, and never fails twice. Possibly granting it
title of "flakiest test" in the database :)
But since it only happens once or not at all I've been unable to
debug it.

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> Volker Hilsheimer
> Sent: søndag 26. juni 2022 15:39
> To: Macieira, Thiago 
> Cc: mailto:development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase
> network failures)
> 
> 
> 
> > On 25 Jun 2022, at 18:33, Thiago Macieira 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 01:57:24 PDT Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >> Perhaps this is a good time to discuss whether we should move Qt
> >> Network into its own repository. This would make qtbase integrations
> >> less exposed to network failure, which - even without certificates
> >> expiring - are a fact of life. And qtbase integrations already suffer from
> plenty of flakiness.
> >> And that an operational issue might require patches to merge and to
> >> get cherry picked, which might take several attempts, each taking
> >> several hours, just amplifies that problem further.
> >
> >> Conceptually, we have made that kind of change before (when taking Qt
> >> Positioning out of the qtlocation repo). But there are some challenges.
> >
> >> One challenge is that several of our Qt Core tests are using
> >> networking features (tests outside of tests/auto/network that include
> >> network-settings.h: tst_qdir, tst_qdiriterator, tst_qfile,
> >> tst_qfileinfo, tst_qiodevice, tst_qtextstream, tst_qfiledialog2).
> >> Without having looked into the details, I'd assume that we might not
> >> need an actual server to test many of those codepaths (or that those
> >> tests can be moved into a qtnetwork repo, ie.
> >> QTextStream::stillOpenWhenAtEnd doesn't seem to test QTextStream,
> which never closes a QIODevice).
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer if those Core tests ddn't use Networking. The
> > majority of them aren't actually using QtNetwork, they are the Windows
> > portion that deals with the SMB server provided by the Network Test
> > Server. So the issue isn't that of QtNetwork, but of the NTS and would
> > remain anyway. That would leave a few tests like QTextStream that use
> > QTcpSocket for some particular QIODevice sequential condition, but
> > which could be replaced with an identical condition with a different class,
> 

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:40:15AM +, Ivan Solovev wrote:
So, if we split network now, we will need to care about manually 
picking to 6.4, 6.3, 6.2 and 5.15.



or just make the bot recognize a syntax like `qtbase(6.4 6.3 6.2 5.15)`?

fwiw, qtrepotools//bin/git-qt-cherry-pick should be probably updated and 
put to use. in fact, it might even make the use of a magic syntax in the 
pick-bot superfluous.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Ivan Solovev]

> If it can be done with little effort, including cherry-picking fixes 
> backwards,
> even to 5.15, then it might be something to be investigated.

Well, at least with qt positioning we need to handle all the cherry-picks to 
5.15 manually,
because the cherry-pick bot obviously does not detect that those need to go to 
qtlocation.git repo.

So, if we split network now, we will need to care about manually picking to 
6.4, 6.3, 6.2 and 5.15.

Best regards,
Ivan



From: Development  on behalf of Mårten 
Nordheim 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Volker Hilsheimer ; Macieira, Thiago 

Cc: development@qt-project.org 
Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase 
network failures)

Hello!

While I don't necessarily object to splitting network out on a fundamental
level, I also find it to be questionable given the effort. If it can be done 
with
little effort, including cherry-picking fixes backwards, even to 5.15, then
it might be something to be investigated.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the fact that network and IO tend
to be more interconnected compared to various other parts of Qt, so
historically it may have been useful to keep those together. But it's
likely less important these days.

As for what is flaky and what is not, I'm not sure it's useful to compare.
Of course, I always notice when something I haven't remotely touched
causes my integrations to fail, and I expect it's the same for others :)

Mårten

PS. [7] from Thiago's message was not a std::filesystem issue,
it was tst_QThread crashing on exit (probably a real failure from the
integration). I have seen the filesystem issue before but it only ever
happens for the first run, and never fails twice. Possibly granting it
title of "flakiest test" in the database :)
But since it only happens once or not at all I've been unable to
debug it.

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> Volker Hilsheimer
> Sent: søndag 26. juni 2022 15:39
> To: Macieira, Thiago 
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase
> network failures)
>
>
>
> > On 25 Jun 2022, at 18:33, Thiago Macieira 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 01:57:24 PDT Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >> Perhaps this is a good time to discuss whether we should move Qt
> >> Network into its own repository. This would make qtbase integrations
> >> less exposed to network failure, which - even without certificates
> >> expiring - are a fact of life. And qtbase integrations already suffer from
> plenty of flakiness.
> >> And that an operational issue might require patches to merge and to
> >> get cherry picked, which might take several attempts, each taking
> >> several hours, just amplifies that problem further.
> >
> >> Conceptually, we have made that kind of change before (when taking Qt
> >> Positioning out of the qtlocation repo). But there are some challenges.
> >
> >> One challenge is that several of our Qt Core tests are using
> >> networking features (tests outside of tests/auto/network that include
> >> network-settings.h: tst_qdir, tst_qdiriterator, tst_qfile,
> >> tst_qfileinfo, tst_qiodevice, tst_qtextstream, tst_qfiledialog2).
> >> Without having looked into the details, I’d assume that we might not
> >> need an actual server to test many of those codepaths (or that those
> >> tests can be moved into a qtnetwork repo, ie.
> >> QTextStream::stillOpenWhenAtEnd doesn’t seem to test QTextStream,
> which never closes a QIODevice).
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer if those Core tests ddn't use Networking. The
> > majority of them aren't actually using QtNetwork, they are the Windows
> > portion that deals with the SMB server provided by the Network Test
> > Server. So the issue isn't that of QtNetwork, but of the NTS and would
> > remain anyway. That would leave a few tests like QTextStream that use
> > QTcpSocket for some particular QIODevice sequential condition, but
> > which could be replaced with an identical condition with a different class,
> like QProcess.
> >
> > But what's the gain? This looks like a lot of effort to me,
> > particularly if we don't move the UNC path tests in the file classes.
> >
> > Not looking scientifically at it, but from memory, the network test
> > server and the networking tests haven't been the majority of spurious
> failures in the CI.
> > They're a big contributor, but not the majority. From a random
> > sampling of test failures in the past week, I see:
> >
> > Non-test failures:
> > * general CI failures - "failed to acquire machine" [1]
> > * sccache network failures [2]
> > * licensing issues with the INTEGRITY compiler
> > * timeouts [3]
> > * weird unexplained failures like [4] or [5] Test failures:
> > * flaky tests on timing (QMutex, QDeadlineTimer, etc.)
> > * QFSModel on macOS on ARM [6]
> > * a std::filesystem unexplored issue on Windows [7]
> > * some widget issues like [8] 

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Volker Hilsheimer]

> On 26 Jun 2022, at 17:35, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, 26 June 2022 06:38:30 PDT Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>> (*) As for the UNC stuff - it seems that we are testing only string parsing
>> code. We are not taking care of any of the actual network traffic or SMB
>> protocol. So do we need to access a share from a remote server at all?
>> Would it be an option to create and share a folder on the Windows VMs
>> running those tests during provisioning, and then use '\\$(COMPUTERNAME)’?
>> That works for me on a local VM at least, all QFile tests pass (and we
>> could probably even enable tst_QFile::largeUncFileSupport and simplify
>> tst_QFile::writeLargeDataBlock_data) after running this as admin:
> 
> This is a very good idea.

This now implemented in:

https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qt5/+/418785 (provisioning script)
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/418799 (use UNC paths to local 
shares in tests)

Works nicely on a local minicoin Windows VM (except tst_qdiriterator, for the 
unrelated reason that the test tries to create a directory structure in the 
source tree of the test).


Volker

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Mårten Nordheim]

Hello!

While I don't necessarily object to splitting network out on a fundamental
level, I also find it to be questionable given the effort. If it can be done 
with
little effort, including cherry-picking fixes backwards, even to 5.15, then
it might be something to be investigated.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the fact that network and IO tend
to be more interconnected compared to various other parts of Qt, so
historically it may have been useful to keep those together. But it's
likely less important these days.

As for what is flaky and what is not, I'm not sure it's useful to compare.
Of course, I always notice when something I haven't remotely touched
causes my integrations to fail, and I expect it's the same for others :)

Mårten

PS. [7] from Thiago's message was not a std::filesystem issue,
it was tst_QThread crashing on exit (probably a real failure from the
integration). I have seen the filesystem issue before but it only ever
happens for the first run, and never fails twice. Possibly granting it
title of "flakiest test" in the database :)
But since it only happens once or not at all I've been unable to
debug it.

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> Volker Hilsheimer
> Sent: søndag 26. juni 2022 15:39
> To: Macieira, Thiago 
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase
> network failures)
> 
> 
> 
> > On 25 Jun 2022, at 18:33, Thiago Macieira 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 01:57:24 PDT Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >> Perhaps this is a good time to discuss whether we should move Qt
> >> Network into its own repository. This would make qtbase integrations
> >> less exposed to network failure, which - even without certificates
> >> expiring - are a fact of life. And qtbase integrations already suffer from
> plenty of flakiness.
> >> And that an operational issue might require patches to merge and to
> >> get cherry picked, which might take several attempts, each taking
> >> several hours, just amplifies that problem further.
> >
> >> Conceptually, we have made that kind of change before (when taking Qt
> >> Positioning out of the qtlocation repo). But there are some challenges.
> >
> >> One challenge is that several of our Qt Core tests are using
> >> networking features (tests outside of tests/auto/network that include
> >> network-settings.h: tst_qdir, tst_qdiriterator, tst_qfile,
> >> tst_qfileinfo, tst_qiodevice, tst_qtextstream, tst_qfiledialog2).
> >> Without having looked into the details, I’d assume that we might not
> >> need an actual server to test many of those codepaths (or that those
> >> tests can be moved into a qtnetwork repo, ie.
> >> QTextStream::stillOpenWhenAtEnd doesn’t seem to test QTextStream,
> which never closes a QIODevice).
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer if those Core tests ddn't use Networking. The
> > majority of them aren't actually using QtNetwork, they are the Windows
> > portion that deals with the SMB server provided by the Network Test
> > Server. So the issue isn't that of QtNetwork, but of the NTS and would
> > remain anyway. That would leave a few tests like QTextStream that use
> > QTcpSocket for some particular QIODevice sequential condition, but
> > which could be replaced with an identical condition with a different class,
> like QProcess.
> >
> > But what's the gain? This looks like a lot of effort to me,
> > particularly if we don't move the UNC path tests in the file classes.
> >
> > Not looking scientifically at it, but from memory, the network test
> > server and the networking tests haven't been the majority of spurious
> failures in the CI.
> > They're a big contributor, but not the majority. From a random
> > sampling of test failures in the past week, I see:
> >
> > Non-test failures:
> > * general CI failures - "failed to acquire machine" [1]
> > * sccache network failures [2]
> > * licensing issues with the INTEGRITY compiler
> > * timeouts [3]
> > * weird unexplained failures like [4] or [5] Test failures:
> > * flaky tests on timing (QMutex, QDeadlineTimer, etc.)
> > * QFSModel on macOS on ARM [6]
> > * a std::filesystem unexplored issue on Windows [7]
> > * some widget issues like [8] or [9]
> >
> > And yes, network test failures in
> > https://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/qt/qtbase/tasks/1655473411
> >
> > But they are nowhere near the majority, even the plurality. The CI
> > general failures, sccache failures and timeouts appear to be far more
> > common and deserve more attention.
> >
> > Even among pure test failures the network ones don't appear to be the
> > largest contributor. So I have to ask: is the effort worth the benefit?
> 
> 
> It’s not going to be a silver-bullet, and I agree that there are other 
> sources of
> flakiness that are likely larger contributors to failing integrations. 
> Anecdotally,
> it seems that every single patch that I was involved in during the last couple
> of weeks was blocked in 

Re: [Development] Splitting Qt Network out of qtbase (was: QtBase network failures)

[Alexandru Croitor]

> On 26. Jun 2022, at 15:38, Volker Hilsheimer  wrote:
> 
> Whereas making sccache fault tolerant

I proposed a simple approach to get rid of sccache failures here

https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/COIN-740?focusedCommentId=651260=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-651260
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

[Riitta-Leena Miettinen]

+1

Leena


Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:31:39 +
From: Topi Reini? 
To: "Development@qt-project.org" 
Subject: Re: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1

Andreas has proved himself to be a valuable contributor and reviewer of 
documentation changes across multiple modules, I'm confident he'd be a good 
approver.

Disclaimer: Andreas is a colleague of mine.

-Topi
--
Topi Reini?, Principal Documentation Engineer | The Qt Company

From: Development  on behalf of Kai K?hne 

Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To: development@qt-project.org 
Subject: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

Hi,

I'd like to propose Andreas Eliasson as an Qt Project Approver.

Dashboard: https://codereview.qt-project.org/dashboard/1009951

Andreas started working on Qt documentation only in February. But since then, 
he did already quite some documentation related patches in various Qt modules. 
He has also been actively reviewing other people's documentation patches. So, I 
see little reason to wait much longer before making him an approver, also 
because getting another documentation approver would be handy in the upcoming 
vacation season?

Kai

--
Kai K?hne, Director R | The Qt Company

The Qt Company GmbH, Erich-Thilo-Str. 10, D-12489 Berlin
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Mika P?lsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 
144331 B


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

[Luca Di Sera]

+1

Disclaimer: Colleague of mine.

From: Development  on behalf of Kai Köhne 

Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To: development@qt-project.org 
Subject: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

Hi,

I'd like to propose Andreas Eliasson as an Qt Project Approver.

Dashboard: https://codereview.qt-project.org/dashboard/1009951

Andreas started working on Qt documentation only in February. But since then, 
he did already quite some documentation related patches in various Qt modules. 
He has also been actively reviewing other people's documentation patches. So, I 
see little reason to wait much longer before making him an approver, also 
because getting another documentation approver would be handy in the upcoming 
vacation season

Kai

--
Kai Köhne, Director R | The Qt Company

The Qt Company GmbH, Erich-Thilo-Str. 10, D-12489 Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 
144331 B

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

[Topi Reiniö]

+1

Andreas has proved himself to be a valuable contributor and reviewer of 
documentation changes across multiple modules, I'm confident he'd be a good 
approver.

Disclaimer: Andreas is a colleague of mine.

-Topi
--
Topi Reiniö, Principal Documentation Engineer | The Qt Company

From: Development  on behalf of Kai Köhne 

Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To: development@qt-project.org 
Subject: [Development] Nominating Andreas Eliasson as Approver

Hi,

I'd like to propose Andreas Eliasson as an Qt Project Approver.

Dashboard: https://codereview.qt-project.org/dashboard/1009951

Andreas started working on Qt documentation only in February. But since then, 
he did already quite some documentation related patches in various Qt modules. 
He has also been actively reviewing other people's documentation patches. So, I 
see little reason to wait much longer before making him an approver, also 
because getting another documentation approver would be handy in the upcoming 
vacation season

Kai

--
Kai Köhne, Director R | The Qt Company

The Qt Company GmbH, Erich-Thilo-Str. 10, D-12489 Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 
144331 B

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development