Patchwatcher: failed regression tests: [6/10 AcceptEx] Implements sock_close_handle

Dan Kegel dank at kegel.com
Sun Sep 7 08:11:07 CDT 2008


That test almost always fails, but you managed to get
it to fail in two new ways.  patchwatcher has a novelty
filter, and ignores known failure messages.  Since
your code triggered new,different failure messages,
it got flagged.  It's possible that the new failure mode
is semirare, so you might have to run the test over
and over again in a loop for a while to catch it.
- Dan

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Scott Lindeneau <slindeneau at gmail.com> wrote:
> With regards to the info with patch [7/10] I see that it still fails
> on patchwatcher, but patchwatcher ignores those. Does this mean that
> it was causing this regression on patchwatcher before and that i never
> noticed them because of a different regression? They still don't cause
> regressions on my system however.
>
> ~Scott
>
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Scott Lindeneau <slindeneau at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand, this patch doesn't cause any regressions on my
>> machine using the latest git (none of them do). The patch[6/10] is
>> (nearly) identical to the patch I submitted earlier (which did not
>> cause regressions). The only difference is in the hash. The next
>> patch[7/10] changes zero functionality because the function that is
>> implemented in [7/10] is unused at this point in time and patch [7/10]
>> passes the conformance tests.
>>
>> scott at SocialSycotic:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$ diff
>> 9.7.2/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt
>> 9-4.7/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt
>> 1c1
>> < From 40ae4098b66df1cb30dc77368ccfc1c495bb0b68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> ---
>>> From d1e0353beb8490bbd9b8818523c6d79daae510ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> scott at SocialSycotic:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$
>>
>> Using only patches [1/10 - 6/10] (The patches applied by patchwatcher
>> when it displays the failure):
>>
>> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p
>> urlmon_test.exe.so protocol.c && touch protocol.ok
>> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
>> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
>> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
>> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
>> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p
>> urlmon_test.exe.so stream.c && touch stream.ok
>>
>> As for the conformance test. I will look into how I have to change the
>> sock.c test loop.
>>
>> ~Scott
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
>>> This is interesting.   It does seem like that patch changed
>>> an error code and added a new failure to urlmon:protocol.c.
>>> Was this just a case of "I should have combined two of the
>>> patches in the series"?
>>>
>>> BTW, if you end up resending the patch series again,
>>> you might send the test case first (with todo_wine's),
>>> and then after the errors are fixed, remove the todo_wine's.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Patchwatcher <patchwatcher at kegel.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi!  This is the experimental automated wine patchwatcher thingy.
>>>> The latest git sources were built and tested with your patch
>>>> "[6/10 AcceptEx] Implements sock_close_handle"
>>>> Result: the patch failed regression tests.
>>>>
>>>> You can retrieve the full build results at
>>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.log
>>>> and see the patch as parsed at
>>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.txt
>>>> See
>>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results
>>>> for more info.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>



More information about the wine-devel mailing list