KDE CI: Frameworks » knewstuff » kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 - Build # 300 - Still unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/knewstuff/job/kf5-qt5%20WindowsMSVCQt5.15/300/ Project: kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 Date of build: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 05:58:26 + Build duration: 3 min 5 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s)Name: projectroot.autotests Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 3 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.core.knewstuff_installationtest
Re: Please fix failing unit tests with Windows platform
Am Montag, 24. Januar 2022, 01:22:05 CET schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > Are you going to propose the same for Linux and FreeBSD where we also have > long running tests that don't succeed and no one bothers to fix them? Yes, if a test is known to fail, and no solution is known, it should be tagged as EXPECT_TO_FAIL. Is there would be projects that do not do that (e.g. if the maintainer only cares for Windows, to turn things around), for those platforms where tests keep failing eternally unhandled we should drop the claim of support (and wasting CI resources). Cheers Friedrich
Re: Please fix failing unit tests with Windows platform
El dilluns, 24 de gener de 2022, a les 1:06:40 (CET), Friedrich W. H. Kossebau va escriure: > Hi, > > since a long time there are lots of failing unit tests across multiple > repositories. Could the Windows platform maintainers/stakeholders please look > soonish into either fixing those tests or properly marking them as expected > to > fail, so the resources the KDE CI spends on running the tests every hour, day > and week make some sense again, as well as having something usable to diff > results again, to notice any new regressions? > > Please see > https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/view/Platform%20-%20WindowsMSVCQt5.15/ > (best sort by "S" build status to get a list what need > > Otherwise I would tend to propose to declare Windows support as unmaintained, > if there is no change within the next weeks. Are you going to propose the same for Linux and FreeBSD where we also have long running tests that don't succeed and no one bothers to fix them? Cheers, Albert > > Thanks in advance > Friedrich > > >
Please fix failing unit tests with Windows platform
Hi, since a long time there are lots of failing unit tests across multiple repositories. Could the Windows platform maintainers/stakeholders please look soonish into either fixing those tests or properly marking them as expected to fail, so the resources the KDE CI spends on running the tests every hour, day and week make some sense again, as well as having something usable to diff results again, to notice any new regressions? Please see https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/view/Platform%20-%20WindowsMSVCQt5.15/ (best sort by "S" build status to get a list what need Otherwise I would tend to propose to declare Windows support as unmaintained, if there is no change within the next weeks. Thanks in advance Friedrich
Maintainers of KDE Frameworks for the Windows platform?
Hi, in the past it was hard to find someone to fix things for KDE Frameworks on Windows, and too often people not interested in Windows had instead to spend their costly leisure time to solve problems, e.g. by debugging via CI runs. I do not think we can expect from every contributor/patch author they are capable to understand and to solve things on all platforms. For one as this does not scale, and even more when the platform is a proprietary one that otherwise works against the mission of KDE and people rather avoid to have to know about it. So we need dedicated maintainer teams for each platform IMHO. And if that team is empty, have to drop the official support for that platform, instead of e.g. having it a "broken windows theory" thing on CI (pun intended). Given Linux (default, all the usual suspect contributors), FreeBSD (Tobias, Adriaan), and Android (some other usual suspect contributors) are covered, there is a reaction time the same day often, when help is needed with those. Other than for Windows (and macOS once it makes it to CI). Who would be available as contact person for KF @ Windows, so could be reliably called in to solve code issues appearing in new work or regressions by external influences? Either by a to be created @teams tag or as highly available individuals? If we do not have enough people who can provide at least, say, weekly work on the Windows platform, I would propose to drop the official support, as it is an annoying burden to those who have no stakes on that platform. And also harms the reputation of the KF product, because being badly maintained and thus partially broken makes it into the developer/user experience on those platforms, which then is mapped onto the whole product (rightfully), not just the support on that platform. Cheers Friedrich
KDE CI: Frameworks » kcoreaddons » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 419 - Fixed!
BUILD SUCCESS Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kcoreaddons/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/419/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:38:50 + Build duration: 1 hr 52 min and counting BUILD ARTIFACTS acc/KF5CoreAddons-5.91.0.xml JUnit Tests Name: (root) Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 33 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 33 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name PackagesFilesClassesLinesConditionalsCobertura Coverage Report91% (10/11)86% (99/115)86% (99/115)78% (8753/11244)43% (13421/30902)Coverage Breakdown by Package Name FilesClassesLinesConditionalsautotests93% (41/44)93% (41/44)96% (3991/4175)48% (8320/17381)src.desktoptojson100% (3/3)100% (3/3)80% (113/142)37% (121/328)src.lib67% (2/3)67% (2/3)59% (388/655)26% (257/986)src.lib.caching100% (2/2)100% (2/2)46% (356/779)16% (199/1212)src.lib.io80% (12/15)80% (12/15)70% (1094/1554)38% (1198/3135)src.lib.jobs71% (5/7)71% (5/7)55% (179/323)33% (65/196)src.lib.plugin89% (8/9)89% (8/9)79% (900/1134)37% (1162/3109)src.lib.randomness100% (3/3)100% (3/3)71% (72/101)57% (48/84)src.lib.text70% (7/10)70% (7/10)61% (615/1011)51% (973/1895)src.lib.util100% (16/16)100% (16/16)83% (1045/1262)49% (1078/2178)tests0% (0/3)0% (0/3)0% (0/108)0% (0/398)
KDE CI: Frameworks » kcoreaddons » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 392 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kcoreaddons/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/392/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:52:27 + Build duration: 1 min 33 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 32 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 33 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.klistopenfilesjobtest_unix
KDE CI: Frameworks » kcoreaddons » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 391 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kcoreaddons/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/391/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:50:52 + Build duration: 1 min 34 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 32 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 33 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.klistopenfilesjobtest_unix
KDE CI: Frameworks » kcoreaddons » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 390 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kcoreaddons/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/390/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:40:25 + Build duration: 1 min 33 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 31 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 32 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.klistopenfilesjobtest_unix
KDE CI: Frameworks » kcoreaddons » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 389 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kcoreaddons/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/389/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:38:50 + Build duration: 1 min 33 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 31 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 32 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.klistopenfilesjobtest_unix
Re: Gitlab CI: failed unit tests vs. currently passing CI
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:56 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El diumenge, 23 de gener de 2022, a les 1:59:01 (CET), Ben Cooksley va > escriure: > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 12:29 PM Albert Astals Cid > wrote: > > > > > El diumenge, 23 de gener de 2022, a les 0:09:23 (CET), Ben Cooksley va > > > escriure: > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:29 AM Albert Astals Cid > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > El dissabte, 22 de gener de 2022, a les 6:11:29 (CET), Ben > Cooksley va > > > > > escriure: > > > > > > EXCLUDE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE_AND_ATOn Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 1:31 PM > > > Friedrich > > > > > > W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems that Gitlab CI is currently configured to show the green > > > > > "Success" > > > > > > > checkmark for pipeline runs even if unit tests are failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is correct, only compilation or other internal failures > cause > > > the > > > > > > build to show a failure result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reasons seems to be that there Gitlab only knows Yay or Nay, > > > without > > > > > the > > > > > > > warning state level known from Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And given that quite some projects (sadly) maintain a few > long-time > > > > > > > failing > > > > > > > unit tests, having the pipeline fail on unit tests seems to > have > > > been > > > > > seen > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > too aggressive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This of course harms the purpose of the unit tests, when their > > > failures > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > only noticed weeks later, not e.g. at MR discussion time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gitlab does note changes in the test suite as can currently be > seen > > > on > > > > > > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kio/-/merge_requests/708 > > > > > > Quoting the page: "Test summary contained 33 failed and 16 fixed > > > test > > > > > > results out of 205 total tests" > > > > > > > > > > > > It does the same thing for Code Quality - "Code quality scanning > > > detected > > > > > > 51 changes in merged results" > > > > > > > > > > Don't want to derail the confirmation, but those results are > terrible, > > > > > they always say things changed in places not touched by the code of > > > the MR, > > > > > any idea why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately not - my only guess would be that cppcheck reports > results > > > > slightly differently which Gitlab has issues interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing how at least in KDE Frameworks first regressions > sneaked in > > > > > without > > > > > > > someone noticing (nobody looks at logs when the surface shows a > > > green > > > > > > > checkmark, e.g. kcoreaddons, kwidgetsaddons, kio, purpose, > krunner > > > on > > > > > > > openSUSE > > > > > > > and possibly more have regressed in recent weeks, see > > > build.kde.org) > > > > > this > > > > > > > should be something to deal with better, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhushan gave two first ideas just now on #kde-sysadmin: > > > > > > > > Well we can add a switch that repos can commit to saying test > > > > > failure is > > > > > > > build failure > > > > > > > > Another alternative is we use bot to write a comment on MR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, to give unit tests the purpose they have, we should by > > > default to > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > test failures be build failures. And have projects opt out if > they > > > > > need to > > > > > > > have some unit tests keep failing, instead of e.g. tagging them > > > with > > > > > > > expected > > > > > > > failures or handling any special environment they run into on > the > > > CI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The switch will need to be around the other way i'm afraid as > there > > > are > > > > > > simply too many projects with broken tests right now. > > > > > > The best place for that switch will be in .kde-ci.yml. > > > > > > > > > > > > My only concern however would be abuse of this switch, much in > the > > > way > > > > > that > > > > > > certain projects abuse EXCLUDE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE_AND_AT. > > > > > > The last thing we would want would be for people to flip this > switch > > > and > > > > > > then leave their CI builds in a failing state - meaning that > actual > > > > > > compilation failures would be missed (and then lead to CI > maintenance > > > > > > issues) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts on that? > > > > > > > > > > Test failing should mark the CI as failed, anything other than that > > > > > doesn't make sense. The CI did fail marking it as passed is lying > to > > > > > ourselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can *still* merge failed MR with failed CI, the Merge button is > ju
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 355 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/355/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:40:53 + Build duration: 42 min and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.home.jenkins.workspace.Frameworks.extra-cmake-modules Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 76 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 76 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name Cobertura Coverage Report
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 354 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/354/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:00:54 + Build duration: 39 min and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.home.jenkins.workspace.Frameworks.extra-cmake-modules Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 76 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 76 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name Cobertura Coverage Report
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 309 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/309/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:00:54 + Build duration: 2 min 33 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 66 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 66 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s)
Re: Gitlab CI: failed unit tests vs. currently passing CI
El diumenge, 23 de gener de 2022, a les 1:59:01 (CET), Ben Cooksley va escriure: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 12:29 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > El diumenge, 23 de gener de 2022, a les 0:09:23 (CET), Ben Cooksley va > > escriure: > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:29 AM Albert Astals Cid > > wrote: > > > > > > > El dissabte, 22 de gener de 2022, a les 6:11:29 (CET), Ben Cooksley va > > > > escriure: > > > > > EXCLUDE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE_AND_ATOn Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 1:31 PM > > Friedrich > > > > > W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems that Gitlab CI is currently configured to show the green > > > > "Success" > > > > > > checkmark for pipeline runs even if unit tests are failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is correct, only compilation or other internal failures cause > > the > > > > > build to show a failure result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reasons seems to be that there Gitlab only knows Yay or Nay, > > without > > > > the > > > > > > warning state level known from Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And given that quite some projects (sadly) maintain a few long-time > > > > > > failing > > > > > > unit tests, having the pipeline fail on unit tests seems to have > > been > > > > seen > > > > > > as > > > > > > too aggressive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This of course harms the purpose of the unit tests, when their > > failures > > > > > > are > > > > > > only noticed weeks later, not e.g. at MR discussion time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gitlab does note changes in the test suite as can currently be seen > > on > > > > > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kio/-/merge_requests/708 > > > > > Quoting the page: "Test summary contained 33 failed and 16 fixed > > test > > > > > results out of 205 total tests" > > > > > > > > > > It does the same thing for Code Quality - "Code quality scanning > > detected > > > > > 51 changes in merged results" > > > > > > > > Don't want to derail the confirmation, but those results are terrible, > > > > they always say things changed in places not touched by the code of > > the MR, > > > > any idea why? > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately not - my only guess would be that cppcheck reports results > > > slightly differently which Gitlab has issues interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing how at least in KDE Frameworks first regressions sneaked in > > > > without > > > > > > someone noticing (nobody looks at logs when the surface shows a > > green > > > > > > checkmark, e.g. kcoreaddons, kwidgetsaddons, kio, purpose, krunner > > on > > > > > > openSUSE > > > > > > and possibly more have regressed in recent weeks, see > > build.kde.org) > > > > this > > > > > > should be something to deal with better, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhushan gave two first ideas just now on #kde-sysadmin: > > > > > > > Well we can add a switch that repos can commit to saying test > > > > failure is > > > > > > build failure > > > > > > > Another alternative is we use bot to write a comment on MR > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, to give unit tests the purpose they have, we should by > > default to > > > > > > let > > > > > > test failures be build failures. And have projects opt out if they > > > > need to > > > > > > have some unit tests keep failing, instead of e.g. tagging them > > with > > > > > > expected > > > > > > failures or handling any special environment they run into on the > > CI. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The switch will need to be around the other way i'm afraid as there > > are > > > > > simply too many projects with broken tests right now. > > > > > The best place for that switch will be in .kde-ci.yml. > > > > > > > > > > My only concern however would be abuse of this switch, much in the > > way > > > > that > > > > > certain projects abuse EXCLUDE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE_AND_AT. > > > > > The last thing we would want would be for people to flip this switch > > and > > > > > then leave their CI builds in a failing state - meaning that actual > > > > > compilation failures would be missed (and then lead to CI maintenance > > > > > issues) > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts on that? > > > > > > > > Test failing should mark the CI as failed, anything other than that > > > > doesn't make sense. The CI did fail marking it as passed is lying to > > > > ourselves. > > > > > > > > > > We can *still* merge failed MR with failed CI, the Merge button is just > > > > red, but it will work. > > > > > > > > > > There is a big difference between "this doesn't compile" (because someone > > > forgot to commit a header/etc, dependency change that isn't in place or > > > because of a platform specific issue) and "some tests failed". > > > What that encourages is for people to ignore the results from the CI > > system > > > - as t
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 353 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/353/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:32:17 + Build duration: 19 min and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.home.jenkins.workspace.Frameworks.extra-cmake-modules Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 76 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 76 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name Cobertura Coverage Report
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 352 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/352/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:08:00 + Build duration: 24 min and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.home.jenkins.workspace.Frameworks.extra-cmake-modules Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 76 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 76 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name Cobertura Coverage Report
KDE CI: Frameworks » kio » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 1330 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kio/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/1330/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 10:41:35 + Build duration: 39 min and counting BUILD ARTIFACTS acc/KF5KIO-5.91.0.xml JUnit Tests Name: (root) Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot Failed: 5 test(s), Passed: 56 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 61 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_jobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_kfileitemtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiofilewidgets_kfilecopytomenutestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_dropjobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_pastetestName: projectroot.autotests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 6 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 6 test(s)Name: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 0 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Failed: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash.tests.testtrashName: projectroot.src.kpasswdserver Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name PackagesFilesClassesLinesConditionalsCobertura Coverage Report61% (25/41)69% (295/429)69% (295/429)58% (39293/68077)42% (21756/52037)Coverage Breakdown by Package Name FilesClassesLinesConditionalsautotests95% (61/64)95% (61/64)91% (11339/12454)46% (7109/15544)autotests.http100% (5/5)100% (5/5)99% (527/528)58% (167/290)autotests.kcookiejar100% (1/1)100% (1/1)94% (173/185)63% (70/112)src100% (1/1)100% (1/1)89% (8/9)71% (10/14)src.core88% (107/121)88% (107/121)61% (9362/15291)52% (4636/8884)src.core.kssl100% (1/1)100% (1/1)38% (33/86)50% (2/4)src.filewidgets79% (30/38)79% (30/38)58% (5391/9312)44% (2296/5243)src.gui100% (11/11)100% (11/11)73% (864/1178)58% (451/776)src.gui.systemd50% (2/4)50% (2/4)4% (7/178)1% (1/108)src.ioslaves.file71% (5/7)71% (5/7)54% (796/1471)41% (533/1298)src.ioslaves.file.kauth0% (0/2)0% (0/2)0% (0/214)0% (0/153)src.ioslaves.ftp100% (2/2)100% (2/2)49% (672/1384)37% (535/1432)src.ioslaves.help0% (0/5)0% (0/5)0% (0/253)0% (0/138)src.ioslaves.http88% (7/8)88% (7/8)43% (1873/4354)37% (1359/3719)src.ioslaves.http.kcookiejar40% (2/5)40%
KDE CI: Frameworks » extra-cmake-modules » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 308 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/extra-cmake-modules/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/308/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:08:00 + Build duration: 2 min 31 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 24 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 25 test(s)Failed: projectroot.tests.KDEFetchTranslationsName: projectroot.tests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 66 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 66 test(s)Name: projectroot.tests.ECMAddTests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 2 test(s)
KDE CI: Frameworks » kio » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 1329 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kio/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/1329/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:55:44 + Build duration: 45 min and counting BUILD ARTIFACTS acc/KF5KIO-5.91.0.xml JUnit Tests Name: (root) Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Name: projectroot Failed: 5 test(s), Passed: 56 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 61 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_jobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_kfileitemtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiofilewidgets_kfilecopytomenutestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_dropjobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_pastetestName: projectroot.autotests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 6 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 6 test(s)Name: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 0 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Failed: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash.tests.testtrashName: projectroot.src.kpasswdserver Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s) Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name PackagesFilesClassesLinesConditionalsCobertura Coverage Report61% (25/41)69% (295/429)69% (295/429)58% (39264/68075)42% (21750/52037)Coverage Breakdown by Package Name FilesClassesLinesConditionalsautotests95% (61/64)95% (61/64)91% (11339/12454)46% (7110/15544)autotests.http100% (5/5)100% (5/5)99% (527/528)58% (167/290)autotests.kcookiejar100% (1/1)100% (1/1)94% (173/185)63% (70/112)src100% (1/1)100% (1/1)89% (8/9)71% (10/14)src.core88% (107/121)88% (107/121)61% (9339/15290)52% (4633/8884)src.core.kssl100% (1/1)100% (1/1)38% (33/86)50% (2/4)src.filewidgets79% (30/38)79% (30/38)58% (5390/9312)44% (2295/5243)src.gui100% (11/11)100% (11/11)73% (864/1178)58% (451/776)src.gui.systemd50% (2/4)50% (2/4)4% (7/178)1% (1/108)src.ioslaves.file71% (5/7)71% (5/7)54% (796/1471)41% (533/1298)src.ioslaves.file.kauth0% (0/2)0% (0/2)0% (0/214)0% (0/153)src.ioslaves.ftp100% (2/2)100% (2/2)49% (672/1384)37% (535/1432)src.ioslaves.help0% (0/5)0% (0/5)0% (0/253)0% (0/138)src.ioslaves.http88% (7/8)88% (7/8)43% (1873/4354)37% (1359/3719)src.ioslaves.http.kcookiejar40% (2/5)40%
KDE CI: Frameworks » kio » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 1340 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kio/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/1340/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:59:28 + Build duration: 3 min 39 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 7 test(s), Passed: 53 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 60 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_jobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_kfileitemtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_ktcpsockettestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiofilewidgets_kfilecopytomenutestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_dropjobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_kdirlistertestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_pastetestName: projectroot.autotests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 6 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 6 test(s)Name: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 0 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Failed: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash.tests.testtrashName: projectroot.src.kpasswdserver Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)
KDE CI: Frameworks » kio » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 1339 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kio/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/1339/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:55:44 + Build duration: 3 min 41 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 7 test(s), Passed: 53 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 60 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_jobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_kfileitemtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiocore_ktcpsockettestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiofilewidgets_kfilecopytomenutestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_dropjobtestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_kdirlistertestFailed: projectroot.autotests.kiowidgets_pastetestName: projectroot.autotests Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 6 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 6 test(s)Name: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 0 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)Failed: projectroot.src.ioslaves.trash.tests.testtrashName: projectroot.src.kpasswdserver Failed: 0 test(s), Passed: 1 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 1 test(s)
KDE CI: Frameworks » kio » kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 - Build # 1148 - Fixed!
BUILD SUCCESS Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kio/job/kf5-qt5%20WindowsMSVCQt5.15/1148/ Project: kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 Date of build: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:55:44 + Build duration: 2 min 10 sec and counting
