Re: bug#72004: 30.0.50, master: 'erc--check-prompt-input-for-multiline-blanks' test fail
Andrea Corallo <[email protected]> Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:30:55 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.erc.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"J.P." <[email protected]> writes: > Andrea Corallo <[email protected]> writes: > >> I buy the theory of this being related to trampoline generation under >> high system load, looking at my logs I see this test failing only with >> native compilation an passing without. >> >> I'm wondering if we could work around the issue somehow 🤔 > > I'm afraid I can offer next to nothing when it comes to serious insights > about Emacs internals and related magic 😞 > >> >> Also I'm not sure the right tag is :expensive, shouldn't be :unstable? > > If we want to prevent the test from running completely (at least on > EMBA), then :unstable would indeed make sense. However, if we'd like the > test to run on the 3x daily expensive pipelines, I'm fairly confident my > latest change sidesteps the issue. It now waits to start the subprocess, > which was previously too short-lived, until after the macro has done its > (potentially time-consuming) advising. Thus, the liveliness check that > was signaling the error should now always find a running process. > (Although, for good measure, I also lengthened the timeout from 10s to > 5m.) All this said, I'm happy to change it to :unstable or try a safer > approach, such as mocking `process-status'. Thanks. Generally speaking I think we should flag tests for what they are and then tune the EMBA testing strategy to our needs afterward. That said with a 5m timeout the test is now probably more expansive than unstable so I think the classificaiton it's fine :) Thanks closing this. Andrea