On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:50:45PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> - Make it exit with failure if a failure is found.
>
> - Add the '--stress-limit=<N>' option to repeat the test script
> at most N times in each of the parallel jobs, and exit with
> success when the limit is reached.
> [...]
>
> This is a case when an external stress script works better, as it can
> easily check commits in the past... if someone has such a script,
> that is.
Heh, I literally just implemented this kind of max-count in my own
"stress" script[1] to handle this recent t0025 testing. So certainly I
think it is a good idea.
Picking an <N> is tough. Too low and you get a false negative, too high
and you can wait forever, especially if the script is long. But I don't
think there's any real way to auto-scale it, except by seeing a few of
the failing cases and watching how long they take.
> t/README | 5 +++++
> t/test-lib.sh | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Patch looks good. A few observations:
> @@ -237,8 +248,10 @@ then
> exit 1
> ' TERM INT
>
> - cnt=0
> - while ! test -e "$stressfail"
> + cnt=1
> + while ! test -e "$stressfail" &&
> + { test -z "$stress_limit" ||
> + test $cnt -le $stress_limit ; }
> do
> $TEST_SHELL_PATH "$0" "$@"
> >"$TEST_RESULTS_BASE.stress-$job_nr.out" 2>&1 &
> test_pid=$!
You switch to 1-indexing the counts here. I think that makes sense,
since otherwise --stress-limit=300 would end at "1.299", etc.
> @@ -261,6 +274,7 @@ then
>
> if test -f "$stressfail"
> then
> + stress_exit=1
> echo "Log(s) of failed test run(s):"
> for failed_job_nr in $(sort -n "$stressfail")
> do
I think I'd argue that this missing stress_exit is a bug in the original
script, and somewhat orthogonal to the limit counter. But I don't think
it's worth the trouble to split it out (and certainly the theme of "now
you can run this via bisect" unifies the two changes).
-Peff
