Build and test failures with Qt 5.6 and Qt 5.3

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:22:13 AM CET Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 08:34:02 CET, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > Yes, most tests don't require a WM. Especially the Net* tests
> > simulate being a
> > window manager. Only the KWindow* tests need a window manager.
> 
> Interesting; it was a Heisenbug, apparently. I cannot reproduce it anymore,
> but I've added code which at least prints out a warning if the Xvfb and/or
> openbox dies for some reason.
> 
> > Well for me there is not much to do. I don't get them failing
> > on my system, so
> > I have no clue what I should fix to make them work again.
> 
> I believe that the CI system and the tests together should be designed to
> provide enough diagnostic information. If you as a developer say "I cannot
> reproduce it on my system, therefore I cannot help you", what can I do as a
> CI administrator to improve the situation? Should we perhaps reduce the
> number of CI-specific scripting to make the deployments closer to what the
> developers run? Would you like pre-built VM images?

Well I did what the CI system does. I started Xvfb with exactly the same 
command as in the build output and also used openbox on that Xvfb and run the 
unit test on the Xvfb. So I think I reproduced the setup. I really tried hard 
to get to the broken state and tried also a few different setups which all did 
not result in a broken test. It takes a long time till I give up on trying to 
reproduce a test, in this case it has happened. (I also must point out that I 
think there is something somewhere horribly broken if we need to adjust our 
tests because Qt changed - currently I need to adjust the tests for each 
release, I'm rather pissed by the "ABI stability" Qt provides).

I wouldn't know what further information the tests could provide to debug it. 
I could tell if I were able to reproduce them and see what goes wrong. At the 
moment all I have is "wm might have crashed" which is nothing the tests can 
check for.

In the long run I want to spend some time in getting our "Xvfb + openbox" 
setup replaced by kwin_wayland on the virtual backend. It would mean KWin gets 
automatically more testing (that's the selfish part) and we have a known base 
for our tests and don't depend on openbox.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151111/ffb245d2/attachment.sig>