Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (master) #1150

Hello Mishal, It looks intermittent; the other runs succeeded. Also, it looks like a crash in one of the unit tests; is there a way to get a crash trace from the one time it occurred? Anders > On Jan 3, 2017, at 18:11, mishal_shah wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Can you please look at this fail

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (master) #1150

I’ll take a look. It seems unrelated to the fix I checked in earlier, though the changes only list my diff). I’ll reply when I find something out. Anders > On 2017-01-03, at 18.11, mishal_shah wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Can you please look at this failure? > > Test Case 'ConventionTests.t

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 14.04 (swift 3.0) #257

This is a failure while building Foundation, and is unrelated to the checkin that triggered the build: Test Suite 'TestNSData' started at 22:47:40.846 Test Case 'TestNSData.testBasicConstruction' started at 22:47:40.846 /home/buildnode/disk2/workspace/oss-swift-3.0-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-14_

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 14.04 (master) #7230

Looks unrelated to the checkins mentioned in this email: Test Case 'TestNSHTTPURLResponse.test_MIMETypeAndCharacterEncoding_1' passed (0.0 seconds). Test Case 'TestNSHTTPURLResponse.test_MIMETypeAndCharacterEncoding_2' started at 20:30:25.699 Test Case 'TestNSHTTPURLResponse.test_MIMETypeAndChar

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: OSS - Swift Package - Ubuntu 14.04 (master) #1804

esman >> <mailto:mgottes...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Can you revert? This is making the linux smoke tests fail. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Anders Bertelrud via swift-dev >>>> mailto:

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: OSS - Swift Package - Ubuntu 14.04 (master) #1804

Pushed a revert until I can figure out why it isn't working. Anders > On 2016-07-28, at 21.42, Michael Gottesman wrote: > > Can you revert? This is making the linux smoke tests fail. > > Michael > >> On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Anders Bertelrud via swift-dev

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: OSS - Swift Package - Ubuntu 14.04 (master) #1804

I am investigating why 6f0b1047d51e6260967ad06e9ded1fa905d508f4 doesn't seem to have fixed this. Anders > On Jul 28, 2016, at 18:30, no-re...@swift.org wrote: > > [FAILURE] oss-swift-package-linux-ubuntu-14_04 [#1804] > > Build URL: > https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift-package-linux-ubuntu

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - OS X (master) #5558

Cool, thanks for confirming! Anders > On Jul 28, 2016, at 17:34, Mishal Shah wrote: > > Yes, next build should pick up the changes from > https://github.com/apple/swift-xcode-playground-support/pull/6 > > Thanks, > Mishal Shah >> On Jul 28, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Anders Bertelrud wrote: >> >> T

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - OS X (master) #5558

This fails due to the updates for SE-0089. Perhaps the necessary support has not yet been merged into the compiler? Anders > On 2016-07-28, at 17.27, no-re...@swift.org wrote: > > [FAILURE] oss-swift-incremental-RA-osx [#5558] > > Build URL:https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift-incremental-R

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: OSS - Swift Package - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #1793

This has already been fixed in: https://github.com/apple/swift-integration-tests/commit/6f0b1047d51e6260967ad06e9ded1fa905d508f4 Anders > On 2016-07-28, at 16.41, no-re...@swift.org wrote: > > [FAILURE] oss-swift-package-linux-ubuntu-15_10 [#1793] > > Build URL: > https://ci.swift.org/job/

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Still Failing: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - OS X (master) #5221

fbd80ace8d104eab2fe4fbf75ab107ada01> >> >> - Daniel >> >>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Daniel Dunbar >> <mailto:daniel_dun...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Some of the prefixes are coming back. >>> >>> - Daniel &

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Still Failing: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - OS X (master) #5221

That's a surprising failure. The renaming of NSLock to Lock happened some time ago, and AFAIK the SwiftPM side of this code hasn't changed for a long time. Because of the other CI problems, many of them haven't been able to progress as far as SwiftPM, so I don't know if this is a new issue. Bu

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #5984

Fixed. > On 2016-06-26, at 13.34, Anders Bertelrud wrote: > > Investigating. > > Anders > >> On 2016-06-26, at 13.30, no-re...@swift.org >> wrote: >> >> [FAILURE] oss-swift-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-15_10 [#5984] >> >> Build URL: >> https://ci.swift.org/job/

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #5984

Investigating. Anders > On 2016-06-26, at 13.30, no-re...@swift.org wrote: > > [FAILURE] oss-swift-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-15_10 [#5984] > > Build URL: > https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-15_10/5984/ >

Re: [swift-dev] [swift-build-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #5898

To close the loop on this, I have resolved the failures I introduced. There is one job that is currently still red, but it is unrelated to SwiftPM: OSS - Swift Package - Ubuntu 14.04 (master) FAIL: Swift :: AutolinkExtract/import

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #5898

Ok. We need to fix that, but for the moment, I've disabled it. I'll double-check the CI after it's gone through. Anders > On 2016-06-22, at 23.34, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Anders Bertelrud > > wrote: >> >> I'll disable it. What's t

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 15.10 (master) #5898

I'll disable it. What's the condition to check to disable it? It looks like the other performance tests are disabled permanently, is that appropriate? Anders > On 2016-06-22, at 23.16, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > +Anders, I don't think we want the perf tests enabled in this config. > > - Dani