Skip to content

Conversation

OCHyams
Copy link
Contributor

@OCHyams OCHyams commented Sep 5, 2025

Buildbot cross-project-tests-sie-ubuntu sees sporadic test failures due to missing "stackTrace" "source" "path". The "path" field is optional for "source" according to DAP, so it's well formed. It works most of the time, and doesn't consistently fail for any one test which is all strangely inconsistent.

I can't replicate the failures locally after running the feature_tests in a loop for 3 hours, and haven't been able to work out why the "source" is sometimes missing by just looking at LLDB code.

So, instead, here is a plaster that I am hoping will improve bot consistency:

  • Attempt to get the stack frames with source paths 3 times before giving up.

It would be ideal if we didn't need to do any of this. I think _post_step_hook could be removed if the behaviour in #156650 was fixed/changed.

Buildbot cross-project-tests-sie-ubuntu sees sporadic test failures due to
missing "stackTrace" "source" "path". The "path" field is optional for "source"
according to DAP, so it's well formed. It works _most_ of the time, and doesn't
consistently fail for any one test which is all strangely inconsistent.

I can't replicate the failure locally after running the feature_tests in a loop
for 3 hours, and haven't been able to work out why the "source" is sometimes
missing by just looking at LLDB code.

So, instead, here is a plaster that I am hoping will improve bot consistency.

Attempt to get the stack frames with source paths 3 times before giving up.

It would be ideal if we didn't need to do any of this. I think `_post_step_hook`
could be removed if the behaviour in gh#156650 was fixed/changed.
@OCHyams OCHyams requested review from SLTozer and jmorse September 5, 2025 12:22
@SLTozer
Copy link
Contributor

SLTozer commented Sep 5, 2025

Some kind of workaround is needed for this - do we have confidence that the error is intermittent based on a random chance of getting a bad response from LLDB, though? I think we have to try something, but it would be good if we could get more information in the event that we run out of attempts, so that we aren't back to square 1 if this error ends up appearing again.

@OCHyams
Copy link
Contributor Author

OCHyams commented Sep 5, 2025

How about this instead? #157130 hopefully the DAP logs give us more clues.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants