From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 09 04:08:17 2024 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2024 08:08:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52075 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sR5tY-0002nd-Tb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:17 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:59000) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sR5tW-0002nV-4Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sR5tP-0004e5-Hz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:08 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sR5tO-0003uq-Fr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:Subject:To:From:in-reply-to: references; bh=UrgRBcSHfMiO+BCGJU60ynyD1ThIsTabKW1aHm6+vHM=; b=YAukU/G+Ge/do2 JksTP20SXvicslNftEw91TfxG1/n31cs9PsLJdC11bDxE4AYVkFAnpTDOPv84FPFsO6M+gYzhyoHj 0eZ3qOV5kZ6LQRIoLMHCgyzOImqDC88vC5nHqbpwaCmI2awJcI80rhWu/rXXpMBSAe4iJLKJ66ntk GlwJvEdzCrM4JHQHYTtwI0rEVvimEi4UyY8SpkFMZ0t1g3LKZwzH9Xs3Hr6vubgUXiBrpyYnqA75m roHdqR5AAST3AIqvdaIIgdkxcJVJn5nPh+KEOWRh+Q2N7/j8yuYwqWQjx/MB3F6Enw+pBEa1y+dUz hocq6aWJAsnT1ij/Qk/g==; Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sR5tO-00012k-73 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 From: Andrea Corallo To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Since few days I see 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' failing. I think the fail is intermittent and because of that I could not determine the commit that introduced it. I observe this both on emacs-30 both on master, the first commit in emacs-30 where I observed it is 2fb6a98ecfa1579273a640e923f2e52f75e1f7ad which seems unrelated (but I mention it so we have a point in time). This is the output I see: Test erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks backtrace: user-error("Process not running") erc--run-input-validation-checks(#s(erc--input-split :string "a" :in run-hook-with-args(erc--run-input-validation-checks #s(erc--input-sp erc-send-current-line() #f(compiled-function (next) #)(#f(lambd funcall(#f(compiled-function (next) #) (progn (fset 'erc-server-buffer vnew) (fset 'erc-process-input-line (unwind-protect (progn (fset 'erc-server-buffer vnew) (fset 'erc-pro (let* ((vnew #'(lambda (&rest r) (setq calls (cons r calls)))) (vnew (let* ((erc--input-review-functions (remove 'erc-add-to-input-ring e (save-current-buffer (set-buffer (get-buffer-create "FakeNet")) (let erc-tests-common-with-process-input-spy(#f(compiled-function (next) #f(compiled-function () #)() #f(compiled-function () #)() handler-bind-1(#f(compiled-function () #) id 1sR9Dv-0005FA-6o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 07:41:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44736) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sR9Dt-0005Ex-EY for 72004@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 07:41:29 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sR9Di-00049o-8J; Tue, 09 Jul 2024 07:41:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=dB9NtozqFA7F7Eel4lfkqBDuzBePqUXjVH/gQEwIGZg=; b=pZzFeElZAyiN UkscDaMKjIGUWbR5LLXm0p0LwCx312tRP8PfEy3ZB4NHj8uz/SJmZ21bRBAFrR0YrBSTtUK/n5M7m GQfFFY1uLlKNtQEURFBwnXOS+DC6D0qp6kM8hEoVPPqVcimcqnwpyadX21nVt0wfWzTC21JRbYOKm vKXSolOzdIDM5woQl6JRhwvZS/+l1AGU+5YOiG6Hzm9GqllRmJ47WuRY6s0hoMw0GfPimMrp5eXov IgXGpZuLlkzjgYOLXTtAhgTONncP4dZ9Cx4KO0au7E0URXN8nsKWW5ejqUxBblO9LHxp9wZ1HLATU Lj1iVF8x5u8q7SBUocVKWg==; Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:41:14 +0300 Message-Id: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrea Corallo , "F. Jason Park" In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Corallo on Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 72004 Cc: 72004@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Andrea Corallo > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 > > Since few days I see 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' > failing. I think the fail is intermittent and because of that I could > not determine the commit that introduced it. > > I observe this both on emacs-30 both on master, the first commit in > emacs-30 where I observed it is 2fb6a98ecfa1579273a640e923f2e52f75e1f7ad > which seems unrelated (but I mention it so we have a point in time). > > This is the output I see: > > Test erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks backtrace: > user-error("Process not running") > erc--run-input-validation-checks(#s(erc--input-split :string "a" :in > run-hook-with-args(erc--run-input-validation-checks #s(erc--input-sp > erc-send-current-line() > #f(compiled-function (next) #)(#f(lambd > funcall(#f(compiled-function (next) #) > (progn (fset 'erc-server-buffer vnew) (fset 'erc-process-input-line > (unwind-protect (progn (fset 'erc-server-buffer vnew) (fset 'erc-pro > (let* ((vnew #'(lambda (&rest r) (setq calls (cons r calls)))) (vnew > (let* ((erc--input-review-functions (remove 'erc-add-to-input-ring e > (save-current-buffer (set-buffer (get-buffer-create "FakeNet")) (let > erc-tests-common-with-process-input-spy(#f(compiled-function (next) > #f(compiled-function () #)() > #f(compiled-function () #)() > handler-bind-1(#f(compiled-function () # ert--run-test-internal(#s(ert--test-execution-info :test #s(ert-test > ert-run-test(#s(ert-test :name erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline > ert-run-or-rerun-test(#s(ert--stats :selector ... :tests ... :test-m > ert-run-tests((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) #f(co > ert-run-tests-batch((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) > ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :un > eval((ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit '(not (or (tag :expensive-test) ( > command-line-1(("-L" ":." "-l" "ert" "--eval" "(setq treesit-extra-l > command-line() > normal-top-level() > Test erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks condition: > Info: Opts: (+wb -sw), Input: "a", want: (a) > (user-error "Process not running") > FAILED 5/95 erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks (10.525627 sec) at lisp/erc/erc-tests.el:1637 Adding the ERC developer to the discussion. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 11 03:10:28 2024 Received: (at 72004) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2024 07:10:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50792 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRnwi-0002jS-0X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 03:10:28 -0400 Received: from mail-108-mta116.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.116]:43115) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRnwe-0002jH-2v for 72004@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 03:10:26 -0400 Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta116.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 190a0a0f5e200017a3.001 for <72004@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:10:21 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: fb41804fc47102e346e569ea510dd86d90a34e8c7f3a X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neverwas.me ; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=A6ljMf2x2nNrKp5iv/0sflhUBz5XluaVltP1eHHk060=; b=J1k+/x/bjTYbyYqkapZbcwkGg1 RL1U5V7WjIe2JRm2xBGnkd/RfIPCcb7DO8UZ2MrgQTxZxyrV7Wnz8Qj5rk8pZ1gcagmlvy2BGYeeW yLCgVCIGasMjh3Vc9onsvNlDJu6/JiToIpOLzgwr/G+kk5BzfQ4WF9tdSTXHh9pD+NtG8aYIWWy4f 3Cz33LyHqDCOUPw2teMZngLb0pVXOCus4LlBqLHhzxexuezfssFE+mzzIdL/qLxPnDCgNTYweg7cm VxZo0Nt8w4KBuZPmXWVQmPVISAWF+WYGHk2XiKaprsWsX/z4+U9JimC2e8pAQqbpkkRrTjk6cZo3s FMmjSsxw==; From: "J.P." To: Andrea Corallo Subject: Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail In-Reply-To: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:41:14 +0300") References: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:10:16 -0700 Message-ID: <87cynkv1yf.fsf@neverwas.me> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Id: masked@neverwas.me X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 72004 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-erc@gnu.org, 72004@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Andrea, Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Andrea Corallo >> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 >> >> Since few days I see 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' >> failing. I think the fail is intermittent and because of that I could >> not determine the commit that introduced it. >> >> I observe this both on emacs-30 both on master, the first commit in >> emacs-30 where I observed it is 2fb6a98ecfa1579273a640e923f2e52f75e1f7ad >> which seems unrelated (but I mention it so we have a point in time). I've not yet witnessed the test in question fail, but I can definitely imagine it doing so because it's rather flimsy, which is my bad. I've therefore attempted a superficial fix on the release branch: ef3f26ec02d ; Tag ERC multiline blanks test as :expensive Here's what (I think) is going on. That test relies on the macro `ert-with-message-capture'. Because that macro advises a few primitive functions, its first appearance in any make-check run exhibits a trampoline penalty in terms of execution time (as I'm sure you, more than anyone, are acutely aware). For example, if you put this at the bottom of test/lisp/emacs-lisp/ert-x-tests.el (ert-deftest ert-with-message-capture/1 () (ert-with-message-capture string (ignore string))) (ert-deftest ert-with-message-capture/2 () (ert-with-message-capture string (ignore string))) you'll notice the first takes upwards of a few seconds (when built with debugging symbols), while subsequent occurrences are comparatively free: passed 21/30 ert-with-message-capture/1 (3.067526 sec) passed 22/30 ert-with-message-capture/2 (0.000396 sec) I think it's possible that this phenomenon, combined with added CPU pressure from unbounded "make -j" runs, may account for the intermittent failures you've been seeing. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that during parallel make-check runs, the first occurrence of `ert-with-message-capture' in any one file always incurs such a penalty because `ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit' deletes its .eln cache on exit and "make -j" runs every test file in a separate process. (Incidentally, I count eleven files in the suite currently using this macro. Granted, none likely depends on a brittle hard timeout, like the "sleep 10" in my test, so there's surely no risk of similar failures, but if the mere appearance of that macro or ones like it translates to noticeable overhead, perhaps it's worth looking into eventually.) Anyway, thanks for bringing this to ERC's attention. J.P. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 11 04:25:02 2024 Received: (at 72004) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2024 08:25:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50959 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRp6s-0004kf-3j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:25:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56182) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRp6p-0004kB-E0 for 72004@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:25:00 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sRp6k-0000ZG-9X; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:24:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=f0eVqAlIeM22seD/M6i8EdaVB30vEPP1k1PewvksYx4=; b=LC9U89pZ8TU9LeyDvyfJ uDZWifNDQs2bgSg8AUneRt1OIGOg64G8awCPw4DL7PhZNAXA9W7evPBknxTbnZ8PDfYQr6pGdINjd 1e/NKidziYW/CPicAJcLWiP6+T5fHS3tUZ9yMCFbmV6CmtuwbY8ZvxMwRM8ANlcZcT4JnEBGjGI5P K1y94tnVSnOojDULHBNZ4GnLlGC7XFofZBLyCFbj3CTRlHhNMCEyoK8MrCmFPA5JjrFb5ITJ64HNB xAK8r9tjBdCTeH8VJUuWcDmEPnzHNjOROsfk9I9+pgrjdhbydlryaMsQSAyC/BdoneHKZkVEWfIvv ujGQCY0x8arkdg==; Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sRp6b-0005MN-6E; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:24:46 -0400 From: Andrea Corallo To: "J.P." Subject: Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail In-Reply-To: <87cynkv1yf.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:10:16 -0700") References: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87cynkv1yf.fsf@neverwas.me> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:24:45 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 72004 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-erc@gnu.org, 72004@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) "J.P." writes: > Hi Andrea, > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> From: Andrea Corallo >>> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:08:06 -0400 >>>=20 >>> Since few days I see 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' >>> failing. I think the fail is intermittent and because of that I could >>> not determine the commit that introduced it. >>>=20 >>> I observe this both on emacs-30 both on master, the first commit in >>> emacs-30 where I observed it is 2fb6a98ecfa1579273a640e923f2e52f75e1f7ad >>> which seems unrelated (but I mention it so we have a point in time). > > I've not yet witnessed the test in question fail, but I can definitely > imagine it doing so because it's rather flimsy, which is my bad. I've > therefore attempted a superficial fix on the release branch: > > ef3f26ec02d ; Tag ERC multiline blanks test as :expensive > > Here's what (I think) is going on. That test relies on the macro > `ert-with-message-capture'. Because that macro advises a few primitive > functions, its first appearance in any make-check run exhibits a > trampoline penalty in terms of execution time (as I'm sure you, more > than anyone, are acutely aware). For example, if you put this at the > bottom of test/lisp/emacs-lisp/ert-x-tests.el > > (ert-deftest ert-with-message-capture/1 () > (ert-with-message-capture string (ignore string))) >=20=20=20 > (ert-deftest ert-with-message-capture/2 () > (ert-with-message-capture string (ignore string))) > > you'll notice the first takes upwards of a few seconds (when built with > debugging symbols), while subsequent occurrences are comparatively free: > > passed 21/30 ert-with-message-capture/1 (3.067526 sec) > passed 22/30 ert-with-message-capture/2 (0.000396 sec) > > I think it's possible that this phenomenon, combined with added CPU > pressure from unbounded "make -j" runs, may account for the intermittent > failures you've been seeing. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm > guessing that during parallel make-check runs, the first occurrence of > `ert-with-message-capture' in any one file always incurs such a penalty > because `ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit' deletes its .eln cache on exit > and "make -j" runs every test file in a separate process. > > (Incidentally, I count eleven files in the suite currently using this > macro. Granted, none likely depends on a brittle hard timeout, like the > "sleep 10" in my test, so there's surely no risk of similar failures, > but if the mere appearance of that macro or ones like it translates to > noticeable overhead, perhaps it's worth looking into eventually.) > > Anyway, thanks for bringing this to ERC's attention. Hi J.P., I buy the theory of this being related to trampoline generation under high system load, looking at my logs I see this test failing only with native compilation an passing without. I'm wondering if we could work around the issue somehow =F0=9F=A4=94 Also I'm not sure the right tag is :expensive, shouldn't be :unstable? Thanks! Andrea From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 11 14:26:26 2024 Received: (at 72004) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2024 18:26:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRyUs-0007gX-0b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:26:26 -0400 Received: from mail-108-mta152.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.152]:40107) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRyUp-0007gO-E3 for 72004@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:26:24 -0400 Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta152.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 190a30bd33000017a3.001 for <72004@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:26:19 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 88977264d35f96c8d25334d7d004da0e5e8e169f84b6 X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neverwas.me ; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6JK+3D2wkIk75Gw5fd0/u0MRkgDj9Cddpzz2YZLFXxA=; b=ZZPi502vvNrwyW1vnijh3c7BOz YuwoVg4vN89rLTJpiQlAY4YThmta1rzcRV6ksjpfbUsL1wdXrM0aNtKG1tuuWDPOYl3cRGc48XewV bJi6FPbTL4xUoat72oMtPRzxgL40O2krS/GmPA6AfBSbWmjeUTn3/Bb+Fb3ufuv1LkFeu3/7Z0hM7 DsRdqNz/tIqY7OuEbhnuGE7V7+iaS+h2ukoRGQYj0FJ5lpT03tXVNoPVfOtakATi5/xbffusODOz6 etq8W5xw9r6ZBsw74R5wV4WYig6u5Go3A/9O7UxrMSpSSBfjwRlLIq9ApivxNDXU0M7GgpuG6iFTK pyPKBNoA==; From: "J.P." To: Andrea Corallo Subject: Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail In-Reply-To: (Andrea Corallo's message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:24:45 -0400") References: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87cynkv1yf.fsf@neverwas.me> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:26:15 -0700 Message-ID: <87bk33ss3c.fsf@neverwas.me> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Authenticated-Id: masked@neverwas.me X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 72004 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-erc@gnu.org, 72004@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Andrea Corallo writes: > I buy the theory of this being related to trampoline generation under > high system load, looking at my logs I see this test failing only with > native compilation an passing without. > > I'm wondering if we could work around the issue somehow =F0=9F=A4=94 I'm afraid I can offer next to nothing when it comes to serious insights about Emacs internals and related magic =F0=9F=98=9E > > Also I'm not sure the right tag is :expensive, shouldn't be :unstable? If we want to prevent the test from running completely (at least on EMBA), then :unstable would indeed make sense. However, if we'd like the test to run on the 3x daily expensive pipelines, I'm fairly confident my latest change sidesteps the issue. It now waits to start the subprocess, which was previously too short-lived, until after the macro has done its (potentially time-consuming) advising. Thus, the liveliness check that was signaling the error should now always find a running process. (Although, for good measure, I also lengthened the timeout from 10s to 5m.) All this said, I'm happy to change it to :unstable or try a safer approach, such as mocking `process-status'. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 12 03:31:10 2024 Received: (at 72004-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2024 07:31:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53127 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sSAkF-0002x0-9L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:31:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37116) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sSAkA-0002wT-Ip for 72004-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:31:06 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sSAk4-0002WO-L4; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:30:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=LZARieNuqy2dIyy3u/0nlzmbaqQ9JJLSawSXLRL+Avg=; b=A8O3KJ0hD0yKcTopK1bB vS8EQilf0m/SDpc54bEcUkzjJ6qNa8i1npWM69Yb9QS26Zs9p8bUkEewxddsguMQUFBOCH8C0o7u7 sa1CZFMHBGFGzV6ZoQYkD2zl/5f352iRli+6jdPqiffFccippuGuQShcUWjW3ppcEsUDY61hJIe+s BUwUsFqQuSM3u1WK4ftGtOmeRhDtgOPnkzoB/YlePKS9mGIFFhK2DDR0xrbUAwL+FXLsXe9T8CsBD ZMyL/sKq03RPCksxRoder0iB+586Jc6jUpWtO6lmgvkE7IOk4N3cy5jhUjKbJxdEtRL7/qUQWYO32 jVh8PLPQO6415A==; Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sSAk3-0003wt-Ln; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:30:55 -0400 From: Andrea Corallo To: "J.P." Subject: Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail In-Reply-To: <87bk33ss3c.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:26:15 -0700") References: <86o776ztb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87cynkv1yf.fsf@neverwas.me> <87bk33ss3c.fsf@neverwas.me> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:30:55 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 72004-done Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-erc@gnu.org, 72004-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) "J.P." writes: > Andrea Corallo writes: > >> I buy the theory of this being related to trampoline generation under >> high system load, looking at my logs I see this test failing only with >> native compilation an passing without. >> >> I'm wondering if we could work around the issue somehow =F0=9F=A4=94 > > I'm afraid I can offer next to nothing when it comes to serious insights > about Emacs internals and related magic =F0=9F=98=9E > >> >> Also I'm not sure the right tag is :expensive, shouldn't be :unstable? > > If we want to prevent the test from running completely (at least on > EMBA), then :unstable would indeed make sense. However, if we'd like the > test to run on the 3x daily expensive pipelines, I'm fairly confident my > latest change sidesteps the issue. It now waits to start the subprocess, > which was previously too short-lived, until after the macro has done its > (potentially time-consuming) advising. Thus, the liveliness check that > was signaling the error should now always find a running process. > (Although, for good measure, I also lengthened the timeout from 10s to > 5m.) All this said, I'm happy to change it to :unstable or try a safer > approach, such as mocking `process-status'. Thanks. Generally speaking I think we should flag tests for what they are and then tune the EMBA testing strategy to our needs afterward. That said with a 5m timeout the test is now probably more expansive than unstable so I think the classificaiton it's fine :) Thanks closing this. Andrea From unknown Sat Aug 16 15:56:58 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 11:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator