Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bluez: disable flaky test #91147

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

Resolves #91011.

Please let me know if there's a better way to skip an autotools test (or if I can easily create a patch file that overwrites the file regardless of contents)!

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Resolves #91011.
@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

@ofborg build bluez

@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

See the x86_64 ofborg output (doCheck is off on arm):

============================================================================
Testsuite summary for bluez 5.54
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 27
# PASS:  26
# SKIP:  1
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL:  0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
============================================================================

cc @timokau

@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

Oh jeez that's a lot. Should I switch the target to staging?

@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

/marvin opt-in

@marvin-mk2 marvin-mk2 bot added the marvin label Jun 20, 2020
@marvin-mk2
Copy link

marvin-mk2 bot commented Jun 20, 2020

Hi! I'm an experimental bot. My goal is to guide this PR through its stages, hopefully ending with a merge. You can read up on the usage here.

@JJJollyjim
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJJollyjim commented Jun 20, 2020

/state needs_review

@timokau
Copy link
Member

timokau commented Jun 20, 2020

Thanks for diving into this! What about the other two failures you noticed here: #91011 (comment)?

Since you already did some analysis, would you mind opening a report upstream as well? That should then be linked in a comment so that in the future people will know if the bug is fixed and the test can be reenabled. Its not a must since this PR improves the status quo either way, but it would be a very nice to have.

Oh jeez that's a lot. Should I switch the target to staging?

Yes, I think that would be better. Especially since there is not that much urgency to it.

@timokau
Copy link
Member

timokau commented Jun 20, 2020

/status needs_work

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.