[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS

[Georg Brandl]

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Georg Brandl]
>> Well, it's tempting to let the buildbots run the tests for you <wink>
>> Honestly, I didn't realize that doctest relies on traceback. Running
>> the test suite takes over half an hour on this box, so I decided to
>> take a chance.
> 
> Nobody ever expects that a checkin will break tests, so merely
> expecting that a checkin won't break tests is not sufficient reason to
> skip running tests.  You made a checkin that broke every buildbot
> slave we have, and I suggest you're taking a wrong lesson from that
> ;-)

No objection, mylord ;)

> Do release-build tests without -uall take over half an hour on your
> box?  Running that much is "good enough" precaution.  Even (on boxes
> with makefiles) running "make quicktest" is mounds better than doing
> no testing.  All the cases of massive buildbot test breakage we've
> seen this week would have been caught by doing just that much before
> checkin.

Until now, I've always run with -uall. Running "make quicktest" is fine,
but if the buildbots starts failing with -uall afterwards, no one will
accept that as an excuse ;)

> When previously-passing buildbots start failing, it at least stops me
> cold, and (I hope) stops others too.  Sometimes it's unavoidable.  For
> example, I spent almost all my Python time Monday repairing a variety
> of new test failures unique to the OpenBSD buildbot (that platform is
> apparently unique in assigning addresses with "the sign bit" set,
> which broke all sorts of tests after someone changed id() to always
> return a positive value).  That's fine -- it happens.  It's the
> seemingly routine practice this week of checking in changes that break
> the tests everywhere that destroys productivity without good cause.

I see, and I'm sorry I was part of it.

> Relatedly, if someone makes a checkin and sees that it breaks lots of
> buildbot runs, they should revert the patch themself instead of
> waiting for someone else to get so frustrated that they do it. 
> Reverting is very easy with svn, but people are reluctant to revert
> someone else's checkin.  The buildbot system is useless so long as the
> tests fail, and having the tests pass isn't optional.

For excuse, I posted here immediately after I saw that the tests failed,
asking whether to change doctest or revert my change.

>> I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module should be
>> rewritten to match the interpreter behavior.
> 
> No argument from me about that.

Fine. There's another one, python.org/sf/1326077, which looks suspicious to
me too.

Georg