TestBot job 50182 results: [PATCH 1/2] kernel32: Partially implement VirtualAllocExNuma
Francois Gouget
fgouget at codeweavers.com
Mon Apr 1 05:20:49 CDT 2019
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Fabian Maurer wrote:
> This is unrelated since I didn't touch the tests, or code that the tests used.
>
> PS: Still don't know why the PATCH is marked as OK on https://
> source.winehq.org/patches/, when the testbot says it failed.
That's precisely because the errors are not new.
Normally what happens is this:
* All test failures are reported on the job's page.
* The TestBot compares the test's failures with those of the latest
WineTest run in the same configuration. Test failures that don't
appear in the WineTest run are considered "new" and are "bolded" on
the job's page.
For instance on the job below we see that wvistau64 has 14 new
errors, while wvistau64_zh_CN has 14 pre-existing errors.
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=50238#k301
This also proves that the TestBot may mistakenly think an error is
new. There are two cases that can happen:
- The error does not always happen and did not happen in the last
WineTest run. I think this could be mitigated by using all the past
WineTest reports and possibly keeping those for a bit more than 1
week.
I think this would only represent a minor risk of false negative
(you'd have to first fix a test failure and then reintroduce it).
- The error contains some random text such as a memory address or
some other uninitialised value. In the job above it looks like this
is the case for the returned buffer size.
Note that the point above also increases the chance we'll find a
match in this case if there are only a few different values.
* You should only get the TestBot's "I found new failures" email when
there are **new** failures. This includes the case where pre-existing
failures look new as above.
* The same way the patches site will only mark the patch as Failed if it
has **new** failures.
--
Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com>
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list