Re: Jenkins-kde-ci: kdbusaddons master kf5-qt5 » Linux, gcc - Build # 11 - Still Unstable!

[Ben Cooksley]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> El dilluns, 25 d’abril de 2016, a les 19:14:00 CEST, Ben Cooksley va escriure:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org>
> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:48:17 PM CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:09:00 PM CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Daniel Vrátil <dvratil at kde.org>
> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:44:16 AM CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:11 PM, David Faure <faure at kde.org>
> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Thursday 21 April 2016 14:57:52 no-reply at kde.org wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> GENERAL INFO
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> BUILD UNSTABLE
>> >> >> >> >> Build URL:
>> >> >> >> >> https://build.kde.org/job/kdbusaddons%20master%20kf5-qt5/PLATFOR
>> >> >> >> >> M=L
>> >> >> >> >> inu
>> >> >> >> >> x,
>> >> >> >> >> compiler=gcc/11/>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Wow, ASAN detected a real bug in Qt here.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Fixed in https://codereview.qt-project.org/156728
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As this issue essentially breaks any test on the CI system that
>> >> >> >> depends on Qt I suggest all developers affected by this indicate
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> on the relevant reviews.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hey guys,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi David,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > any chance to get this patch into our Qt build on the CI since it
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > been
>> >> >> > integrated upstream now? As it affects all tests that interact with
>> >> >> > DBus
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > would be nice to resolve this on the CI.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We'll need upstream to update qt5.git (I think that's still required
>> >> >> for changes to fully flow through) I think.
>> >> >> We could try to hack the patch in, but then we'll end up having to
>> >> >> undo that in a few weeks time.
>> >> >
>> >> > Could we disable that ASAN check please[1]? I have two of my projects
>> >> > failing due to the DBus problem and one further failing due to a
>> >> > similar
>> >> > problem in QQuickStyleItem [2]. It's nice that we find errors, but I
>> >> > rather not have my tests fail due to errors in Qt.
>> >>
>> >> That would just cover up the issue.
>> >
>> > Yes it would and that's exactly what I want.
>> >
>> > To me the CI is currently producing false positives. It started to break
>> > from one moment to the other. It costs time to look into why it started
>> > to fail. It means that till that problem is fixed in Qt I cannot trust
>> > the CI system. It results in nobody noticing real breakage, because the
>> > build is broken anyway.
>> >
>> > Then there is the problem of responsibility: I look at the output, I have
>> > no idea why that thing is broken, I have no idea how to build a minimal
>> > example which would reproduce it, even less on how to fix it. That's just
>> > a really bad situation to have a CI which can be trusted.
>> >
>> > In summary: I don't want spend time to investigate false positives. If an
>> > option results in false positives, I think that we should disable it.
>>
>> Understandable.
>>
>> > Of course Qt should get those bugs fixed, but for that Qt should enable
>> > ASAN on their CI system. If we get libraries which are free of ASAN
>> > problems, then we can enable it on our side. But false positives are just
>> > bad.
>>
>> Based on this i'm going to assume Qt is not ASAN compliant, and will
>> therefore be disabling ASAN for all KDE projects across the entire KDE
>> CI system in 24 hours unless nobody objects.
>
> Instead of an axe let's be more precise and disable the check that's giving us
> problems
>
> https://phabricator.kde.org/D1489
>
> And reenable it in a month.

This has now been done.
If someone could send a reminder once the fix has made it's way into
qt5.git that would be much appreciated.

>
> Cheers,
>   Albert

Thanks,
Ben

>
>>
>> Objectors can be expected to place pressure on the appropriate
>> processes within the Qt Project to:
>> a) Get the necessary changes flowed through into qt5.git so we can
>> pick them up (the existing process is painfully slow)
>> b) Get their CI system to check for ASAN issues.
>>
>> > Cheers
>> > Martin
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
>> Kde-frameworks-devel at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
>
>