[phobos] phobos commit, revision 2028

[Brad Roberts]

Emails are on my todo list.  My top plans:

1) track svn revision id's

2) change the build rate to be reactive to submissions (ie, potentially much
faster than once an hour, but also not at all when no changes have been submitted)

3) send breakage emails

Maybe I should move #3 to be #1.  I can add the changes that caused the
brokenness later.  Would everyone be ok with receiving one mail every time
anything breaks in any build?  Right now that'd mean roughly 2 emails per hour
while things are broken.. potentially 4 per hour when osx/freebsd are added.

Another thought I had was to have each build cycle contain one and only one
change.  If multiple changes come in between runs, still just increment through
them with a couple back-to-back builds.  It'd make it a lot easier to see
exactly which change introduced breakage.

Some thoughts on your list..

1) I've noticed that most of the breakages have been platform specific.
Interestingly, most of them have NOT been in platform specific code.  So... why?
 (Yes, yours was in posix path handling, but that's not typical for the last
couple weeks).

2) I find this one easy enough to work around by using two trees.. one being my
do lots of development stuff, all over the place as the fancy suits me.  The
second being the 'carve off a set to be checked in'.  I use the latter to avoid
exactly the problem you mention, allowing the testing of the set to submit in
isolation.  The cost of moving changes over adds overhead, but usually isn't
nearly as hard as writing the code in the first place and is something you get
better at with just a little practice.

But, yes, absolutely, things happen and that's ok.  Reacting and resolving when
they do is as important as any other step of the development process.

Later,
Brad

On 9/18/2010 7:00 PM, David Simcha wrote:
>  Yea, I'm guilty of breaking the Linux builds.  I think a good enhancement to
> your auto testing system would be to have it automatically nag the Phobos list
> whenever something breaks (instead of you doing it manually).  The reasons why
> things slip through the cracks seem to be:
> 
> 1.  Breaking platform-specific code for a platform you don't develop on.
> 
> 2.  Bits of code in your tree that you never committed that you forgot about,
> that change the results.
> 
> Realistically, these things will always slip through the cracks once in a while,
> but when they do quick and automatic feedback is a Good Thing (TM).
> 
> On 9/18/2010 9:45 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> I just tried building with link upgraded to the 8.00.7 beta.. no better.
>>
>> Guys, it's really important that all of these packages continue to build and
>> pass their respective tests.  It seems like we can't go more than a day or so
>> without something new being introduced that breaks something.
>>
>> I recognize that we're all volunteers here, but please be responsible for making
>> sure your changes don't cause any platform to stop building and passing tests.
>> It might well be that there's a lurking problem that's just surfaced somehow,
>> but the bottom line is that being unable to build and run the tests successfully
>> is a blocker for everyone.
>>
>> I also recognize that not everyone has access to more than one platform.  That's
>> exactly one of the reasons I setup the auto build/test system.  Hopefully we'll
>> get os/x and freebsd added soon.  Use it.. watch the results.
>>
>> In case your head has been in the sand, the url:
>>      http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
>>
>> Fix or revert.. file bugs.. figure out work arounds.. but don't leave broken.
>>
>> Please?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brad
>>
>> On 9/18/2010 5:49 PM, David Simcha wrote:
>>>   Yeh, I had experimentally added std.parallelism to my DMD directory and
>>> compiled Phobos and encountered similar things.  When I ran the unittests for
>>> std.parallelism by itself, they passed.  Whenever I ran them along with the rest
>>> of Phobos, there was an access violation somewhere (I don't know where).  I
>>> didn't say anything because I wasn't sure where the bug was at the time, and
>>> didn't have a clue where to start tracking it down.
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2010 8:39 PM, Shin Fujishiro wrote:
>>>> Brad Roberts<braddr at puremagic.com>   wrote:
>>>>> The win32 phobos tests started failing after this submit.. with an access
>>>>> violation.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?dataid=3525
>>>> Probably it's related to the executable size.
>>>>
>>>> With the following pragma, I found that the access violation starts
>>>> from about 82 instantiations of std.typecons.Tuple.
>>>> ----------
>>>> struct Tuple(Specs...)
>>>> {
>>>>       pragma(msg, "@@@");
>>>> ...
>>>> ----------
>>>> Removing some Tuple instantiations in Tuple's unittests suppressed the
>>>> access violation.  Try removing first two blocks in Tuple's unittests;
>>>> phobos tests should succeed with no access violation.
>>>>
>>>> Or, run the tests without a random module.  For instance, inserting
>>>> __EOF__ at the beginning of std/json.d fixes the access violation!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My commit r2025 erased the body of a dummy function in Tuple.  I reckon
>>>> that changeset could suppress the access violation thanks to smaller
>>>> executable.  Now, another commit increased the size, and...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shin