Test-multiple
Robert Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Tue Feb 20 16:22:48 UTC 2018
Here's what I see in the Jenkins log:
```
;;; Loading "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file1.lisp"
;;; Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action
(PREPARE-SOURCE-OP
"test-multiple-too"
"file2"),
but dependency (LOAD-SOURCE-OP
"test-multiple-too"
"file1")
wasn't done yet!
;;; Loading "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file2.lisp"
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file3.fas"
;;; Compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file3.lisp.
;;; Finished compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file3.lisp.
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file3.fas"
;;; Compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file4.lisp.
;;; Finished compiling /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/test/file4.lisp.
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file4.fas"
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file3.fas"
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file3.fas"
;;; Loading
"/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/asdf/build/fasls/mkcl-1.1.10.17.head.2-2dbfa99-linux-x64/asdf/test/file4.fas"
TEST ABORTED: These two expressions fail comparison with EQUAL:
TEST-PACKAGE::*FILE4* evaluates to T
NIL evaluates to NIL
```
IIUC from what Fare said earlier, this would indicate that there's a bug
in ASDF behavior on MKCL here, because file4.fas should not be loaded
twice.
TBH, I have no idea why this happened for me in Jenkins, but not when I
tested myself.
Note the warning -- this is a warning message I'm coming to really hate:
1. it has data that looks almost like a type error. If `NIL` is OK for
the `PLAN`, then we should have a conditional in the warning format
string that just prunes the plan out of the warning message if it's
`NIL`. If `NIL` is *not* ok, then we need to explain that it isn't, and
there should probably be a different and earlier warning.
2. It assumes that the user will understand what a `just-done stamp` is,
and how it fits into a plan. This really asks too much.
3. It doesn't tell the user what's really wrong. And, I suspect in this
case it's sort of ASDF's fault, and it's sort of the fault of the system
-- the system has a bad name (it is a sub-system without a "slashy
name"), and somehow when we have that, we get these warnings. If that's
the case, then we should give the user the information about the root
cause and suppress these warnings, which are just noise.
Best,
r
On 19 Feb 2018, at 19:07, Jean-Claude Beaudoin wrote:
> If you let me know what Jenkins happens to be then I may be able to
> give a
> look at the problem.
> I have been planning an update to the latest ASDF for my upcoming
> (RSN)
> release of MKCL 1.1.11,
> so I may as well squeeze that question in.
>
> Regards,
>
> JCB
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>
> wrote:
>
>> The failure isn't replicable to me, which bothers me some. I suspect
>> it
>> means that it's having side-effects in the file system that aren't
>> entirely
>> cleaned up. I'm eyeballing the test and it *does* affect the
>> filesystem,
>> and it does not remove the files (really symlinks) it creates. So ...
>> potentially there could be insufficiently controlled side-effects
>> that gave
>> me a transient failure? I don't know. I suppose it's also possible
>> that it
>> does something with the filesystem that Jenkins isn't allowed to do,
>> and
>> that's why I got the Jenkins-only failure. But that explanation
>> doesn't
>> explain why I get failure only with Jenkins *and* MKCL.
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 16:43, Faré wrote:
>>
>> test-multiple works for me with asdf 3.3.1.4, mkcl 1.1.10.19-2dbfa99
>> on Linux 4.14 x64.
>>
>> This is all long gone from my mental cache. The test could be better
>> commented, but I suppose the purpose can be extracted by looking at
>> its history then looking at related commits, bugs, bug fix commits,
>> mailing-list messages, etc. A starting point:
>> git log --stat test/test-multiple.*
>>
>> Apparently, it tests support for what is now considered misnamed
>> secondary systems, but was once a kind-of-supported feature, seen in
>> the wild, with nasty consequences sometimes (e.g. infinite loop with
>> quicklisp until relevant fix).
>>
>> A variable not being rebound is a test that a file hasn't been
>> reloaded.
>>
>> I'd rather not add comments, but I'll review them gladly.
>>
>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
>> •Reflection&Cybernethics•
>> http://fare.tunes.org
>> Everyone hates a martyr. It's no wonder martyrs were burnt at a
>> stake.
>> — E.W. Howe, "Country Town Sayings", p.7
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info
>> wrote:
>>
>> Faré ---
>>
>> Would you please add some comments to test-multiple? I got a failure
>> on
>> that with MKCL under jenkins on linux, but cannot replicate that
>> failure
>> running it myself.
>>
>> There's no comment saying what this is supposed to test, other than
>> the
>> name, which suggests that it's about testing where there are ...
>> multiple
>> systems defined (incorrectly) in one .asd file? the same systems
>> defined in
>> multiple .asd files?
>>
>> The test checks to make sure (I believe) that a variable is not
>> rebound
>> when
>> we ask to reload a system, but not how this pertains to correct ASDF
>> function.
>>
>> thanks!
>> r
>>
>>
Robert P. Goldman
Research Fellow
Smart Information Flow Technologies (d/b/a SIFT, LLC)
319 N. First Ave., Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Voice: (612) 326-3934
Email: rpgoldman at SIFT.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20180220/69f84156/attachment.html>
More information about the asdf-devel
mailing list