Fix the problem that Darwin memory leak detection may fail

[yangbodong22011]

refer: #8205

[oranagra]

@yangbodong22011 thanks for looking into this.
I wonder what are the pros and cons of using your approach rather than add another string matching on the response to cover another version of leaks.
I suppose there's no race possible in your approach since you check if the process is still alive after the execution of leaks, but still, maybe it's better to let it decide if it succeeded or failed.
P. S I see this in the man page (maybe we should use it instead of string matching):

     The leaks command exits with one of the following values:

     0	   No leaks were detected.
     1	   One or more leaks were detected.
     >1    An error occurred.

[yangbodong22011]

@oranagra Agree to use the return value. My code is from: here.

I also test this, but when pid not exists, the code is 1 and not 255, so I used the above method.

catch {exec leaks $pid} output option
puts [dict get $option -code]

[oranagra]

the code you wrote / copied looks good to me.
i changed the comment a bit, let me know if you agree it's better.

[oranagra]

thanks @yangbodong22011 can you please make sure again that this works on all MacOS variants you have (since we have no coverage for this in CI)

[yangbodong22011]

thanks @yangbodong22011 can you please make sure again that this works on all MacOS variants you have (since we have no coverage for this in CI)

On my computer, MacOS High Sierra, I've tested it.
At present, I can't test the MacOS Big Sur because I borrowed other people's computers before. I will verify the MacOS Big Sur at a convenient time later.

[yangbodong22011]

thanks @yangbodong22011 can you please make sure again that this works on all MacOS variants you have (since we have no coverage for this in CI)

On my computer, MacOS High Sierra, I've tested it.
At present, I can't test the MacOS Big Sur because I borrowed other people's computers before. I will verify the MacOS Big Sur at a convenient time later.

I borrowed someone else’s "MacOS Big Sur" test and passed, but I found that the leaks error still did not match the original issue. The original error is: [fatal] process 4812 has not started. But my "MacOS Big Sur" is:

MacOS Big Sur
➜ ~ leaks 55555
leaks[27180]: leaks cannot examine process 55555 (with name like '55555') because it no longer appears to be running.
leaks[27180]: [fatal] mach port for process 55555 not valid

So let's go back to the original issue and let the person who raised the issue help verify it.

[enjoy-binbin]

@yangbodong22011 do you have some times to look into this one? https://github.com/enjoy-binbin/redis/actions/runs/5017425080/jobs/8995524700#step:5:15263
i don't know how to read the leak report, and it may be a false positive. and you may have better vision

[yangbodong22011]

@yangbodong22011 do you have some times to look into this one? https://github.com/enjoy-binbin/redis/actions/runs/5017425080/jobs/8995524700#step:5:15263 i don't know how to read the leak report, and it may be a false positive. and you may have better vision

seems this test fail:

Starting test Check for memory leaks (pid 61056) in tests/unit/cluster/hostnames.tcl - with servers:

and have some log

61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.561 - Connection with Node 426efca909c1e37120f9b0e0ee58cf43a1e16669 at 127.0.0.1:31668 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.561 - Connection with Node 5ca5a2d7fd19904b113ebd7bbb47ad8cdf07b624 at 127.0.0.1:31670 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.561 - Connection with Node ebcd8d132b88052f68fa01a8a66073744ef1033a at 127.0.0.1:31669 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.663 - Connection with Node 45053a08a706609ce0530f95008e3b36f8cd80ea at 127.0.0.1:31667 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.663 - Connection with Node 118c512d5a7889718584a7611948da38e01bf2b3 at 127.0.0.1:31671 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.663 - Connection with Node 426efca909c1e37120f9b0e0ee58cf43a1e16669 at 127.0.0.1:31668 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.663 - Connection with Node 5ca5a2d7fd19904b113ebd7bbb47ad8cdf07b624 at 127.0.0.1:31670 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.663 - Connection with Node ebcd8d132b88052f68fa01a8a66073744ef1033a at 127.0.0.1:31669 failed: Connection refused
61056:M 18 May 2023 21:43:12.765 - Connection with Node 45053a08a706609ce0530f95008e3b36f8cd80ea at 127.0.0.1:31667 failed: Connection refused