GNU bug report logs - #75906
30.0.93; track-changes-tests--random failure

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Xiyue Deng <manphiz <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:30:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Merged with 73041

Found in versions 30.0.90, 30.0.93

Done: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #22 received at 75906 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 75906 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, morgan <at> ice9.digital, manphiz <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#75906: 30.0.93; track-changes-tests--random failure
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 14:11:22 +0200
> Cc: 75906 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Morgan Willcock <morgan <at> ice9.digital>
> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 18:13:47 -0500
> From:  Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
> 
> forcemerge 75906 73041
> thanks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It looks like those two bugs are one and the same.
> 
> > > Hmm... that's weird.  I tried:
> > >
> > >     src/emacs --batch -Q                                              \
> > >               --eval '(setq track-changes-tests--random-seed 814217)' \
> > >               -l test/lisp/emacs-lisp/track-changes-tests.elc         \
> > >               --eval '(ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit t)'
> 
> Duh!  It was just a pilot error on my end: the seed needs to be
> a string.  After fixing the above to use
> 
>     (setq track-changes-tests--random-seed "814217")
> 
> I was able to reproduce the problem locally.
> 
> > It looks like this test may be flaky.
> 
> It's randomized (which is why it prints the seed it used, so you can
> try and reproduce it reliably once it hits a problem).
> 
> > | Test track-changes-tests--random backtrace:
> > |   cl--assertion-failed((not (memq id track-changes--clean-trackers)))
> > |   track-changes-fetch(#s(track-changes--tracker :signal #f(compiled-fu
> 
> After finding the origin of the problem, I think that the better fix is
> to adjust the assertion.  The better short term fix for `emacs-30` is to
> simply comment out this assertion.
> 
> Any objection to pushing the patch below to `emacs-30`?

No objection, please go ahead, and thanks.




This bug report was last modified 165 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.