On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:02:24 +0200, Björn Ketelaars <bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl> wrote:
> On Sat 27/08/2016 11:54, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > > Update looks good to me. I'm a bit concerned by the test suite > > taking much longer than before : > > > > On 1.0.6 > > 1 failed, 489 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 557.11 seconds > > On 1.0.7 > > 1 failed, 507 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 1555.24 seconds > > > > Is only the test suite that takes longer, did you notice any change > > while using it normally? > > Daniel, > > I'm unable to reproduce your test results: > > On 1.0.6 > 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1500.20 seconds > On 1.0.7 > 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1737.95 seconds > > Running the test suite from 1.0.7 takes a bit longer than running the > suite from 1.0.6. I'm inclined to blame the additional tests. Results > from both test suites are reproducible (using same machine - amd64). > > What is interesting is that you have found a failed test. Could you > share the test logs? It is not unlikely that this failed test > explains the difference in running times. It's weird because this morning, I ran two times make test and it happened both. Now I did it again, and I have 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 285.23 seconds and 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 289.07 seconds which looks correct. You didn't see anything weird with real usage (i.e. not with make test but with actual backup work)? If so it may be a glitch on my side.
