Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test fix - expect (null) instead of $(XX), and $(XX) instead of $(N) in some other places #79

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

GBuella
Copy link
Contributor

@GBuella GBuella commented Apr 13, 2018

Hopefully helps with #77


This change is Reviewable

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Apr 13, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #79 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #79   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.95%   91.95%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines         957      957           
=======================================
  Hits          880      880           
  Misses         77       77
Flag Coverage Δ
#pmemfile_tests 86.35% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#regular_tests 90.8% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8405e65...3d19c90. Read the comment docs.

@krzycz
Copy link
Contributor

krzycz commented Apr 13, 2018

:lgtm:


Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.


Comments from Reviewable

@GBuella
Copy link
Contributor Author

GBuella commented Apr 16, 2018

@elboulangero , could you try if this fixes the tests in #77 on your debians?

@elboulangero
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @GBuella, thanks for pinging me.

Here's a build in Debian Jessie, test 25 and 28 still fail.

      Start 25: fork_logging
25/40 Test #25: fork_logging ...........................***Failed    0.17 sec
Executing: LD_PRELOAD=/build/syscall-intercept-0.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/libsyscall_intercept.so.0.1.0
		INTERCEPT_ALL_OBJS=1
		/build/syscall-intercept-0.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/test/fork_logging /build/syscall-intercept-0.1/test/fork_logging.c .log.logging .log.2.logging

...

      Start 28: hook_clone
28/40 Test #28: hook_clone .............................***Failed    0.17 sec
Executing: LD_PRELOAD=/build/syscall-intercept-0.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/test/libhook_test_clone_preload.so
		INTERCEPT_ALL_OBJS=1
		/build/syscall-intercept-0.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/test/fork_logging /build/syscall-intercept-0.1/test/fork_logging.c .log.hook_clone .log.2.hook_clone

...

Total Test time (real) =   2.05 sec

The following tests FAILED:
	 25 - fork_logging (Failed)
	 28 - hook_clone (Failed)

I attach the log files, tell me if you need more info.

log.2.hook_clone.txt
log.2.logging.txt
log.hook.txt
log.hook_clone.txt
log.logging.txt

@elboulangero
Copy link
Contributor

Debian Stretch still succeeds

@elboulangero
Copy link
Contributor

Debian Buster fails, test 25 and 28 fail exactly as on Jessie (same diff in the logs), and additionally the test 40 - syscall_format_logging fails. For some reason I didn't find a .log.2 file for this test, so I can only match syscall_format.log.match against .log.syscall_format_logging, which is not super helpful. Should I run some magic command to generate this .log.2.* file?

@GBuella
Copy link
Contributor Author

GBuella commented Apr 17, 2018

@elboulangero I updated the patch, could you check it again?
I tried matching it with the logs you provided, there should be some improvement now.
I realized the mmap syscall's loggig format was changed, but some log lines in match files were never updated, since we didn't try it on such debian instances.
Thanks anyways!

@GBuella GBuella changed the title Test fix - expect (null) instead of $(XX) Test fix - expect (null) instead of $(XX), and $(XX) instead of $(N) in some other places Apr 17, 2018
@elboulangero
Copy link
Contributor

elboulangero commented Apr 18, 2018

@GBuella Thanks for the update! Now the tests succeed in Debian Jessie!

I still have a failure for Debian Buster, the 3 tests. From what I've seen

  • Test 28 - hook_clone fails because of the lines wait4(4294967295, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0) = ?. Notice that the number 4294967295 is in fact -1. For Debian Jessie, this line is indeed wait4(-1, ...).
  • Test 25 - fork_logging seems to have the same issue.
  • Test 40 - syscall_format_logging I don't know what's going on here.

Files for Buster attached.


log.2.hook_clone.txt
log.2.logging.txt
log.hook_clone.txt
log.logging.txt
log.syscall_format_logging.txt

@marcinslusarz
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should merge this as is and work on other issues in a new bug report.

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.

5 participants