On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 12:10:05AM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:56:21PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > Could we just kill them all?
> >
> > I guess it's a little tricky, because $! is going to give us the pid of
> > each subshell. We actually want to kill the test
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:56:01PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > +test_expect_success 'roll those dice' '
> > + case "$(openssl rand -base64 1)" in
> > + z*)
> > + return 1
> > + esac
> > +'
>
> Wasteful :)
>
> test $(($$ % 42)) -ne 0
Oh, indeed, that is much more clever. :)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:56:21PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Could we just kill them all?
>
> I guess it's a little tricky, because $! is going to give us the pid of
> each subshell. We actually want to kill the test sub-process. That takes
> a few contortions, but the output is nice (every
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:36:26PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> The signal interrupts the first wait.
Ah, of course. I'm ashamed to say that this is not the first time I
forget about that...
> > Bash 4.3 or later are strange: I get back the shell prompt immediately
> > after ctrl-C as well, so it
Jeff King writes:
> Each "wait" will try to collect all processes, but may be interrupted by
> a signal. So the correct number is actually "1 plus the number of times
> the user hits ^C".
Yeah and that is not bounded. It is OK not to catch multiple ^C
that races with what we do, so having ane
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:22:23AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > So the right number of waits is either "1" or "2". Looping means we do
> > too many (which is mostly a harmless noop) or too few (in the off chance
> > that you have only a single job ;) ). So it works out in practice.
>
> Well,
Jeff King writes:
> But the ^C case is interesting. Try running your script under "sh -x"
> and hitting ^C. The signal interrupts the first wait. In my script (or
> yours modified to use a single wait), we then proceed immediately to the
> "exit", and get output from the subshells after we've
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:01:06PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > > - Make '--stress' imply '--verbose-log' and discard the test's
> > > standard ouput and error; dumping the output of several parallel
> > > tests to the terminal would create a big ugly mess.
> >
> > Makes sense. My
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:34:54AM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> Just a quick reply to this one point for now:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:44:09AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:34:57PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > > + job_nr=0
> > > + while test $job_nr -lt
On Wed, Dec 05 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:01:41PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >> decide to stress test in advance, since we'd either flock() the trash
>> >> dir, or just mktemp(1)-it.
>> >
>> > While 'mktemp' seems to be more portable than 'flock', it
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:01:41PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> decide to stress test in advance, since we'd either flock() the trash
> >> dir, or just mktemp(1)-it.
> >
> > While 'mktemp' seems to be more portable than 'flock', it doesn't seem
> > to be portable enough; at least
On Wed, Dec 05 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> It's a frequent annoyance of mine in the test suite that I'm
>> e.g. running t*.sh with some parallel "prove" in one screen, and then I
>> run tABCD*.sh manually, and get
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:44:09AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:34:57PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > To prevent the several parallel invocations of the same test from
> > interfering with each other:
> >
> > - Include the parallel job's number in the name of the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> It's a frequent annoyance of mine in the test suite that I'm
> e.g. running t*.sh with some parallel "prove" in one screen, and then I
> run tABCD*.sh manually, and get unlucky because they use the same trash
> dir, and
Just a quick reply to this one point for now:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:44:09AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:34:57PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > + job_nr=0
> > + while test $job_nr -lt "$job_count"
> > + do
> > + wait
> > + job_nr=$(($job_nr
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> It's a frequent annoyance of mine in the test suite that I'm
> e.g. running t*.sh with some parallel "prove" in one screen, and then I
> run tABCD*.sh manually, and get unlucky because they use the same trash
> dir, and
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:04:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 04 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > The number of parallel invocations is determined by, in order of
> > precedence: the number specified as '--stress=', or the value of
> > the GIT_TEST_STRESS_LOAD
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:34:57PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> To prevent the several parallel invocations of the same test from
> interfering with each other:
>
> - Include the parallel job's number in the name of the trash
> directory and the various output files under 't/test-results/'
On Tue, Dec 04 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> Unfortunately, we have a few flaky tests, whose failures tend to be
> hard to reproduce. We've found that the best we can do to reproduce
> such a failure is to run the test repeatedly while the machine is
> under load, and wait in the hope that the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:04:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 04 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > The number of parallel invocations is determined by, in order of
> > precedence: the number specified as '--stress=', or the value of
> > the GIT_TEST_STRESS_LOAD
On Tue, Dec 04 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> The number of parallel invocations is determined by, in order of
> precedence: the number specified as '--stress=', or the value of
> the GIT_TEST_STRESS_LOAD environment variable, or twice the number of
> available processors in '/proc/cpuinfo', or 8.
21 matches
Mail list logo
