Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1656803002:
[Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 10 months ago by rmcilroy Modified:
4 years, 10 months ago Reviewers:
Michael Achenbach CC:
v8-reviews_googlegroups.com, Michael Starzinger, oth, mythria, tandrii(chromium) Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git@int_fix_setcode Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master Project:
v8 Visibility:
Public. |
Description[Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error.
Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test.
BUG=v8:4280, v8:4680
LOG=N
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg
Committed: https://crrev.com/a37158393e30863eb2ce77b4beaafaa98f365e74
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33665}
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : Rebase #Patch Set 3 : Fix for release #Patch Set 4 : #
Total comments: 6
Patch Set 5 : Change TIMEOUTs to SKIPs #Patch Set 6 : Couple more tweaks #Messages
Total messages: 49 (19 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/1
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_linux64_asan_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_asan_rel/builds/...) v8_linux_arm_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_rel/builds/13105) v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel/bu...) v8_presubmit on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/10367)
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/20001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_linux64_rel_ng on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_rel_ng/builds/754) v8_linux64_rel_ng_triggered on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_rel_ng_triggered...)
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/40001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/40001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_linux_rel_ng on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_rel_ng/builds/764) v8_linux_rel_ng_triggered on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_rel_ng_triggered/b...)
rmcilroy@chromium.org changed reviewers: + machenbach@chromium.org
Michael, PTAL, thanks. Michi/Orion/Mythri FYI.
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/60001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/60001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_mac_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_mac_rel/builds/14824)
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/60001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/60001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_win64_rel_ng on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win64_rel_ng/builds/2308) v8_win64_rel_ng_triggered on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win64_rel_ng_triggered/b...)
There's a syntax error in the status file, best caught by presubmit: https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/10380/...
https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.status File test/cctest/cctest.status (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:526: 'test-run-jsexceptions/ThrowMessageIndirectly': [FAIL, PASS] , missing here
https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.status File test/cctest/cctest.status (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:506: 'test-api/*' : [SKIP], Lots of skips are turned into fails. I remember there were a bunch of flaky things among the test failures. If they become flaky again after this CL, please add back the skips for the flaky ones after landing. https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.status File test/cctest/cctest.status (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:709: 'test-thread-termination/TerminateOnlyV8ThreadFromThreadItself': [TIMEOUT], Expected timeouts are discouraged (also flaky ones). The feature is on my things-to-remove list. If it indeed times out, it raises total test times a lot and might result in overall test runner timeouts on swarming. Please leave things that are expected to time out as skip.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.status File test/cctest/cctest.status (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:506: 'test-api/*' : [SKIP], On 2016/02/01 20:28:42, Michael Achenbach wrote: > Lots of skips are turned into fails. I remember there were a bunch of flaky > things among the test failures. If they become flaky again after this CL, please > add back the skips for the flaky ones after landing. Will do, I'll try to keep an eye on the tree after landing for flakes. https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.status File test/cctest/cctest.status (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:526: 'test-run-jsexceptions/ThrowMessageIndirectly': [FAIL, PASS] On 2016/02/01 20:20:01, Michael Achenbach wrote: > , missing here Yeah sorry, messed this up in the last patch set. Fixed. https://codereview.chromium.org/1656803002/diff/60001/test/cctest/cctest.stat... test/cctest/cctest.status:709: 'test-thread-termination/TerminateOnlyV8ThreadFromThreadItself': [TIMEOUT], On 2016/02/01 20:28:42, Michael Achenbach wrote: > Expected timeouts are discouraged (also flaky ones). The feature is on my > things-to-remove list. > > If it indeed times out, it raises total test times a lot and might result in > overall test runner timeouts on swarming. Please leave things that are expected > to time out as skip. Changed to skip.
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/80001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/80001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders: v8_linux_arm64_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_rel/builds/1...)
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/100001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/100001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
Description was changed from ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N ========== to ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg ==========
lgtm - I've added a CL desc line that triggers a few extra debug bots that were sensitive to interpreter changes in the past.
The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1656803002/100001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1656803002/100001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg ========== to ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg ========== to ========== [Interpreter] Group ignition cctest failures by error. Also changes SKIP to FAIL to ensure we know when we have fixed a test. BUG=v8:4280,v8:4680 LOG=N CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.v8:v8_linux_arm64_dbg,v8_linux_arm_dbg Committed: https://crrev.com/a37158393e30863eb2ce77b4beaafaa98f365e74 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33665} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/a37158393e30863eb2ce77b4beaafaa98f365e74 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33665}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
@tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that I just triggered manually. I triggered through rietveld UI: https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 And CQ just retriggered: https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 Maybe some properties are mismatching?
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that I just > triggered manually. > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > And CQ just retriggered: > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused the results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple now.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 10:01:46, Michael Achenbach wrote: > On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that I just > > triggered manually. > > > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > > > And CQ just retriggered: > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? > > Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused the > results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple now. The new ones are purple because they were automatically cancelled as not needed after CQ has committed the CL. In CQ logs I don't see them being triggered though.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 10:43:31, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > On 2016/02/02 10:01:46, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that I > just > > > triggered manually. > > > > > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > > > > > And CQ just retriggered: > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > > > > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? > > > > Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused the > > results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple now. > > The new ones are purple because they were automatically cancelled as not needed > after CQ has committed the CL. In CQ logs I don't see them being triggered > though. Looks like these builds were scheduled manually and then cancelled explicitly: https://apis-explorer.appspot.com/apis-explorer/?base=https://cr-buildbucket....
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 10:46:38, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > On 2016/02/02 10:43:31, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > > On 2016/02/02 10:01:46, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that I > > just > > > > triggered manually. > > > > > > > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > > > > > > > And CQ just retriggered: > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > > > > > > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? > > > > > > Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused the > > > results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple now. > > > > The new ones are purple because they were automatically cancelled as not > needed > > after CQ has committed the CL. In CQ logs I don't see them being triggered > > though. > > Looks like these builds were scheduled manually and then cancelled explicitly: > https://apis-explorer.appspot.com/apis-explorer/?base=https://cr-buildbucket.... Hmm - yea looks like Ross triggered them, did you Ross? Or is it a hidden CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS feature?
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 10:54:14, Michael Achenbach wrote: > On 2016/02/02 10:46:38, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > > On 2016/02/02 10:43:31, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > > > On 2016/02/02 10:01:46, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > > On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > > > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots that > I > > > just > > > > > triggered manually. > > > > > > > > > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > > > > > > > > > And CQ just retriggered: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > > > > > > > > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? > > > > > > > > Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused the > > > > results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple > now. > > > > > > The new ones are purple because they were automatically cancelled as not > > needed > > > after CQ has committed the CL. In CQ logs I don't see them being triggered > > > though. > > > > Looks like these builds were scheduled manually and then cancelled explicitly: > > > https://apis-explorer.appspot.com/apis-explorer/?base=https://cr-buildbucket.... > > Hmm - yea looks like Ross triggered them, did you Ross? Or is it a hidden > CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS feature? Yes, I triggered arm_dbg and arm64_dbg last night (and possibly again this morning) using the UI since I knew they might have issues. Did the ones you scheduled run a different set of tests?
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/02/02 11:04:53, rmcilroy wrote: > On 2016/02/02 10:54:14, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > On 2016/02/02 10:46:38, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > > > On 2016/02/02 10:43:31, Sergiy Byelozyorov wrote: > > > > On 2016/02/02 10:01:46, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > > > On 2016/02/02 10:00:08, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > > > > > @tandrii,sergiyb: Wonder why CQ doesn't reuse the existing trybots > that > > I > > > > just > > > > > > triggered manually. > > > > > > > > > > > > I triggered through rietveld UI: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1847 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/252 > > > > > > > > > > > > And CQ just retriggered: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm_dbg/builds/1848 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_dbg/builds/253 > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe some properties are mismatching? > > > > > > > > > > Ah better: Looks like CQ triggered the new bots, but in the end reused > the > > > > > results of the existing builds and committed. The new ones look purple > > now. > > > > > > > > The new ones are purple because they were automatically cancelled as not > > > needed > > > > after CQ has committed the CL. In CQ logs I don't see them being triggered > > > > though. > > > > > > Looks like these builds were scheduled manually and then cancelled > explicitly: > > > > > > https://apis-explorer.appspot.com/apis-explorer/?base=https://cr-buildbucket.... > > > > Hmm - yea looks like Ross triggered them, did you Ross? Or is it a hidden > > CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS feature? > > Yes, I triggered arm_dbg and arm64_dbg last night (and possibly again this > morning) using the UI since I knew they might have issues. Did the ones you > scheduled run a different set of tests? No, not at all. I got confused. Never mind. |
