jwhite at codeweavers.com
Fri Oct 13 11:35:40 CDT 2017
I thought I would start my annual harangue a little bit early this year.
I thought I'd summarize the lens I see things with and then see if
there is anything constructive we can do now, and then again when we
meet in person. Then we'll also have drink to turn to if we end with
nothing but despair.
The ideal is that this page:
be covered entirely in green. That would indicate that our unit tests
ran successfully on all tested systems. A further ideal is that it
would have 'Mac' and 'Android' columns that were also green. The holy
dream we all crave is that a 'make test' would work in a rational
fashion. And the ultimate fantasy is that every patch sent would be
tested not only on Windows if the tests change, but on Linux, Mac, and
Android as well. (Alexandre does that by hand now, but it'd be nice to
automate that test).
A more reasonable ideal is that all of our tests would run successfully
on a well curated list of 'rigorous' test machines. I don't believe
that we have an official page for that; I maintain an unofficial one here:
That is all of the 'newtb' Windows VMs excluding Windows 2000, Windows
8, and Windows 10.
That list of failures has fluctuated; starting at about 40, and once
getting down to as few as a dozen. It now stands at about 20, where
it's been for a while. Nicely (?), we're down to only intermittent
I think the instinct has been to fix all of the Windows tests; that once
those are consistently green, then it would make sense to go after a
well defined Linux rig and push it to green.
CodeWeavers has a rack of hardware and we're happy to put any flavor of
system in there (and have done so, with standard rigs for testing AMD
and NVidia Linux boxes). A quick scan suggests that those rigs stand at
about the same number of failures; low to mid teens.
I think we are lacking several things:
1. Some help for Francois. He's basically doing all of this on his
own. We could use some people willing to fight through Perl to help
extend our capabilities.
2. The ability (will?) to drive the Windows tests to green. Is it
time to articulate a kind of test that is expected to periodically fail?
In other words, do we have tests that 'reasonably' fail, and so we
should redefine that failure?
Many years in the past, we had constructive sessions where I forcibly
prevented people from going to the pub until we flipped a whole lot more
bits to green. I can remember times when that worked quite nicely. But
we haven't been as productive with that lately. Is it worth dedicating
another block of time to it at the Wine conference? Would it work
better if we prepared ahead of time?
For example, let me suggest this: that developers start right now
running winetest on machines they plan to bring to Wineconf. Then we
can have that body of information available to us at the conference, and
we can choose to attack issues that show commonality.
Does that make sense?
Any other prep work we should do? (Jacek and Piotr assure me that there
will be plenty of beer for drowning sorrows, so that seems to be covered).
More information about the wine-devel