Re: Odd message from git post-receive hook
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Geert Janssens wrote: > On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:59:05 John Ralls wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Geert Janssens > > wrote: > > > > > > So how come the mail script whips up the wrong subject ? > > > > > > Geert > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded Message -- > > > > > > Subject: gnucash 2.4: Report the proper minimum version for > > > libgoffice when not found at configure time > > > Date: Tuesday 26 November 2013, 11:57:04 > > > From: GIT SVN Migration User > > > To: i...@kobaltwit.be > > > > > > Updatedvia https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/907e9112 > > > (commit)> > > > from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/7b7e57a6 (commit) > > > > Because line 232 says: > > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s > > $newref)” Which is the right answer only when git is checked out in > > the right branch. > > > > We could make it > > if [ “x$refname_type” = “xbranch” ]; then > > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -b $refname -n 1 > > --format=%s $newref)” else > > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s > > $newref)” > > > > fi > > > > Which would fix most instances. > > > > Regards, > > John Ralls > That's worth a try. > > Geert Pushed. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Odd message from git post-receive hook
On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:59:05 John Ralls wrote: > On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > > > > So how come the mail script whips up the wrong subject ? > > > > Geert > > > > > > -- Forwarded Message -- > > > > Subject: gnucash 2.4: Report the proper minimum version for > > libgoffice when not found at configure time > > Date: Tuesday 26 November 2013, 11:57:04 > > From: GIT SVN Migration User > > To: i...@kobaltwit.be > > > > Updated via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/907e9112 > > (commit)> > > from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/7b7e57a6 (commit) > > Because line 232 says: > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s > $newref)” Which is the right answer only when git is checked out in > the right branch. > > We could make it > if [ “x$refname_type” = “xbranch” ]; then > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -b $refname -n 1 > --format=%s $newref)” else > subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s > $newref)” > > fi > > Which would fix most instances. > > Regards, > John Ralls That's worth a try. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Odd message from git post-receive hook
On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > Introduction: I'm currently the only one receiving mails from our gitolite's > post-receive hook for > commits pushed to the gnucash svn repository. But when we drop svn in favour > of git, > everybody will be receiving these messages. So any problem I come across in > this internal test > is important for our future list messaging. > > So I got this weird message sent today after I pushed a backporting commit to > the 2.4 branch. > > Notice the mail subject: it talks about a patch for libgoffice, which I > pushed to trunk earlier > today. However that's not what I pushed to 2.4. You can see that in the > actual commit message: > I pushed > [22070] Fix memory leak: Missing regfree() after regcomp(). > > So how come the mail script whips up the wrong subject ? > > Geert > > > -- Forwarded Message -- > > Subject: gnucash 2.4: Report the proper minimum version for libgoffice when > not found at > configure time > Date: Tuesday 26 November 2013, 11:57:04 > From: GIT SVN Migration User > To: i...@kobaltwit.be > > Updatedvia https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/907e9112 > (commit) > from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/7b7e57a6 (commit) Because line 232 says: subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s $newref)” Which is the right answer only when git is checked out in the right branch. We could make it if [ “x$refname_type” = “xbranch” ]; then subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -b $refname -n 1 --format=%s $newref)” else subject="$projectdesc $short_refname: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s $newref)” fi Which would fix most instances. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Guile 2 status
On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > > Would this be a good time to start preferring guile 2 over guile 1.8 > when both are available ? It's an easy switch in configure. That's fine with me. I've been using Guile 2 for the last week or two and haven't noticed any issues related to that. Mike ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Guile 2 performance
The people at the guile irc channel asked me for some performance tests in gnucash comparing gnucash/guile1.8 vs gnucash/guile2.0. I thought our GnuCash devs could be interested as well, so here goes: I have conducted two tests: 1. run make check 20 times in the src/report/standard-reports directory. I have chosen that directory because the tests are fairly heavy and almost purely in scheme. So the time to run the tests is a good indicator of the relative performance of the two guile versions. 2. start gnucash --nofile a couple of times in a row and time how long it takes to display the main window. This is not a very accurate test - I looked at the wall clock to measure this. But startup time is something users are sensitive to, so it would be interesting to check for improvements. Note that guile 2 now compiles its source files. This happens automatically whenever a file is newer than the last compiled version. For an installed gnucash, this should happen only once (at first startup) and hence is not representative of the user's experience. So for the gnucash/guile 2 test, I have first run make check and started the application once before doing my performance tests. As such, (one time) compile times are not part of the test results. The results: 20x standard-reports tests: - guile 1.8: real: 3m59s user: 2m40s sys: 0m9s - guile 2.0: real: 2m48s user: 1m45s sys: 0m11s Startup time (wall clock time to show main window, test run 3 times at least) Average time is given: - guile 1.8: 13s (consistently) - guile 2.0: 9s (consistently) That means that guile 2 improves the test performance with about 30% compared with guile 1.8 and reduces the startup time with about 30% as well. That's a nice improvement we get for free without even optimizing our own code IMO :) Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Odd message from git post-receive hook
Introduction: I'm currently the only one receiving mails from our gitolite's post-receive hook for commits pushed to the gnucash svn repository. But when we drop svn in favour of git, everybody will be receiving these messages. So any problem I come across in this internal test is important for our future list messaging. So I got this weird message sent today after I pushed a backporting commit to the 2.4 branch. Notice the mail subject: it talks about a patch for libgoffice, which I pushed to trunk earlier today. However that's not what I pushed to 2.4. You can see that in the actual commit message: I pushed [22070] Fix memory leak: Missing regfree() after regcomp(). So how come the mail script whips up the wrong subject ? Geert -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: gnucash 2.4: Report the proper minimum version for libgoffice when not found at configure time Date: Tuesday 26 November 2013, 11:57:04 From: GIT SVN Migration User To: i...@kobaltwit.be Updated via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/907e9112 (commit) from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/7b7e57a6 (commit) commit 907e911251e091076f1a3ee061059d479d56a4fa Author: Geert Janssens Date: Tue Nov 26 16:55:55 2013 + [22070] Fix memory leak: Missing regfree() after regcomp(). This fix is backported because it solves this bug: Bug 681907 - Save operation is leaking seriously, eventually GnuCash uses 6.4 GB RAM git-svn-id: svn+ssh://svn.gnucash.org/repo/gnucash/branches/2.4@23446 57a11ea4-9604-0410-9ed3-97b8803252fd Summary of changes: src/backend/xml/gnc-backend-xml.c |1 + src/html/gnc-html.c |1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) - ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Guile 2 status
With r23444 I have squashed the last failing tests I ran into with guile 2 and auto-compilation enabled. I am aware that our tests don't cover the full source code, so there may still be guile 2 related bugs lurking in some dark forgotten corners. Nevertheless I consider the guile 2 support to be complete now. Would this be a good time to start preferring guile 2 over guile 1.8 when both are available ? It's an easy switch in configure. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: r23416 Breaks Report Tests
On Monday 25 November 2013 22:57:26 Peter Broadbery wrote: > Having originally wrote the tests, I've had a look at this, but not > been able to replicate it - running Ubuntu 13.04. It would help to > see exactly what html is generated for a report in an environment > where the test does not work (plus the full stack traces). > > The chances are that the test code is failing to match the report to > the expected text. I suspect the easiest fix is to force the locale > to "C" within the test, but I'm none too familiar with locales. > > Peter > Peter, That was a good suggestion, thanks ! I have now fixed the tests by explicitly setting the locale to "C" right before generating the test output. It may make sense though in the future to extend the test to run in several locales to catch issues that are locale dependent. That could catch issues like - the one I had with € symbols in the tax invoice report (in guile 2 these were not displaying correctly, the reason I added the setlocale call in the first place). - weird date formatting issues - non-utf locales - ... Anyway, that's not my current focus. The existing report tests properly pass dist check, so on to the next issue to polish... Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: r23437 - gnucash/trunk/src/scm - TEMPORARY -- REBASE THIS OUT
On Monday 25 November 2013 16:11:00 John Ralls wrote: > Author: jralls > Date: 2013-11-25 16:11:00 -0500 (Mon, 25 Nov 2013) > New Revision: 23437 > Trac: http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/changeset/23437 > > Modified: >gnucash/trunk/src/scm/main.scm > Log: > TEMPORARY -- REBASE THIS OUT > > Temporary reversion of r23416 so that reports tests will pass > > Modified: gnucash/trunk/src/scm/main.scm > == = > --- gnucash/trunk/src/scm/main.scm2013-11-25 15:58:03 UTC (rev 23436) > +++ gnucash/trunk/src/scm/main.scm2013-11-25 21:11:00 UTC (rev > 23437) @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ > > ;; Initalialize localization, otherwise reports may output > ;; invalid characters > -(setlocale LC_ALL "") > +;;(setlocale LC_ALL "") > > ;;(use-modules (ice-9 statprof)) > > > ___ > gnucash-changes mailing list > gnucash-chan...@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-changes JFYI, I spoke with John about this commit on irc yesterday. It was not intended to get pushed, but since the original commit breaks dist-check, we have decided to keep the reverted commit until the tests are adapted. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Loading XML V1 files
On Tuesday 26 November 2013 02:52:31 Mike Alexander wrote: > --On November 25, 2013 6:13:39 PM +0100 Geert Janssens > > wrote: > > since you committed these changes I have a failing test in the xml > > backend. This is after John's patches to fix these tests. > > > > The failing test for me is test-xml-pricedb. This test still seems > > to > > call the V1 xml code. Could that be related to your changes ? > > That was likely because of my changes, but it looks like John fixed it > in r23439 shortly after you sent this message. Next time I do > something like this, I'll run make check. Sorry for the trouble. > > Mike Yes, John fixed it. You can disregard my message. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
