Regression tester regressed [baseline]

[tamiko]

[start automated regression testsuite report]

Dear all,

this is the automated regression testsuite reporting an unclean regression run compared to the baseline.

• revision: 901ec46 regression testsuite results

Summary:

• 😠 test failures for configuration GNU-13.1.1-master-64bit_indices-20230507 on site tester-tos

Previous 5 testsuite runs:

• old revision: 901ec46 regression testsuite results
• old revision: 901ec46 regression testsuite results
• old revision: e3f890a regression testsuite results
• old revision: 4f8abe4 regression testsuite results
• old revision: 4f8abe4 regression testsuite results

Last 5 regression test reports:

• Regression tester regressed 4f8abe #16277
• Regression tester regressed 0452d8 #16275
• Regression tester regressed a02917 #16235
• Regression tester regressed 087064 #16215
• Regression tester regressed 47cf4a #16209

Notes:

• I have opened this issue because I encountered an unclean regression run compared to the baseline, but
• I was unable to identify a regression between the current run and the previous run of the regression testsuite. This is likely due to one of the following two reasons:
  • The previous testsuite run is incomplete and I thus cannot infer that the regressions occurred between the current and previous run.
  • The previous testsuite run had configure or build failures for a configuration, and the current testsuite run shows configure, build warnings, or failing tests.
    In this case I cannot infer when those failures have been introduced exactly and resort to opening a less specific issue.
• I will close and unpin this issue automatically once a full run is complete and compares cleanly to the baseline.

[end automated regression testsuite report]

[kinnewig]

These errors are interesting.
As far as I understand this problem, this error is caused by the operator= of the TperaWrappers::Vector.
While working on the Tpetra wrappers, I already observed that the original operator= does not work in parallel.

So, I wonder why this test worked in the past...