Skip failing tests for Linux/MIPS/PowerPC #590
Conversation
|
If CI is skipping some tests on these architectures, I think that makes them Tier 2, not Tier 1. |
|
@asomers The README has details on what the tiers mean. For Tier 1 it means the platforms are built and tested in CI and failures should never happen. Tier 2 means there is no automated testing, but the code should at least compile. For Tier 3 it means that testing is done, but we don't guarantee that they pass (admittedly Tier 2 and 3 should be swapped). |
|
Ideally we don't have any platforms under Tier 3 and hopefully I can remove that distinction soon. |
|
@Susurrus for the three platforms in question, you're proposing that only some of the tests will be run in CI. If they tests aren't all run, then I don't think we can call it Tier 1. Tier 1.1 perhaps, if we want to use floats, but not Tier 1. And currently the Tier 3 definition says that we don't even guarantee that the build will pass. Until we change that guarantee, we shouldn't swap Tier 2 and Tier 3. |
|
It won't always be possible to run all tests in CI due to various issues with Travis or Qemu or other possible issues. I don't think a distinction between "all" and "almost all" really makes much difference. The point of stating tiers is so that users (and I guess developers as well) have expectations of the state of the code and its rough quality. Platforms in Tier 1 are well supported, Tier 2 less so, and Tier 3 the least. Platforms not supported are at your own risk so to speak. And you bring up a good point about Tier 3, we should separate tests and builds because Tier 3 should be guaranteed to build but don't necessary have their tests run during CI. |
|
@kamalmarhubi It doesn't look like my |
|
weird, I tried it out locally. |
Susurrus
force-pushed
the
fix_platforms
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3a77c3b to
ff4676f
Compare
|
@kamalmarhubi Yeah, it worked correctly when I tested it locally using |
|
I think the problem is that cross is testing things and since it's in qemu it might not be receiving the |
|
Oh good point. |
|
This is relevant: cross-rs/cross#77 |
|
@kamalmarhubi Good find. That PR looks pretty close to finished so hopefully we can push it through to the next |
|
Sent cross-rs/cross#91 so hopefully we'll get this functionality sooner than later. |
|
We should actually also try to upstream our |
|
Looks like cross is a little hard to test here because of it's need for a release .zip uploaded to GitHub, which is why the most recent commit broke everything. It'll be easiest to block on this until cross-rs/cross#91 gets released. |
Susurrus
force-pushed
the
fix_platforms
branch
4 times, most recently
from
03e983a to
5f7a01e
Compare
Susurrus
force-pushed
the
fix_platforms
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8b847f6 to
9d8f735
Compare
Seems that pretty much all aio tests fail on x64 musl builds.
Susurrus
changed the title
|
@asomers @kamalmarhubi Could you guys look over this? Seems good to me and I'd like to merge. |
| @@ -6,52 +6,57 @@ language: rust | |||
| services: docker | |||
| sudo: required | |||
|
|
|||
| # This is the Rust channel that build jobs will use by default but can be | |||
| # overridden on a case by case basis down below | |||
| rust: 1.13.0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason not to use a default rust value? It makes the matrix section more duplicative.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you use the default, you end up with an "extra" test run. You can see how there's two x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu runs that execute right now. This fixes that problem. Looks like I didn't specify that in the commit message, which I can do.
| @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ fn poll_aio(mut aiocb: &mut AioCb) -> Result<()> { | |||
| // bindings. So it's sufficient to check that AioCb.cancel returned any | |||
| // AioCancelStat value. | |||
| #[test] | |||
| #[cfg_attr(all(target_env = "musl", target_arch = "x86_64"), ignore)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So all of these tests fail in x86_64 musl but pass in i686 musl? Weird. Does cross use qemu to run i686 tests? I would think that it wouldn't need to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You bring up a good point. i don't think cross runs things in QEMU based on this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I've filed an issue (cross-rs/cross#107) in order for this to be made more clear.
|
bors r+ |
590: Skip failing tests for Linux/MIPS/PowerPC r=asomers These should be issues with QEMU itself and not problems on the actual hardware, but I want to get some upstream tickets filed before merging this. I'm also not sure if this syntax is correct on the `#cfg`, so this is testing that as well.
Build failed |
|
This issue is due to a bug in |
|
cross is fixed. bors r+ asomers |
590: Skip failing tests for Linux/MIPS/PowerPC r=Susurrus These should be issues with QEMU itself and not problems on the actual hardware, but I want to get some upstream tickets filed before merging this. I'm also not sure if this syntax is correct on the `#cfg`, so this is testing that as well.
Build succeeded |
These should be issues with QEMU itself and not problems on the actual hardware, but I want to get some upstream tickets filed before merging this. I'm also not sure if this syntax is correct on the
#cfg, so this is testing that as well.