The glibc Fedora Rawhide CI tests rebuild strace to ensure that we don't break it when synchronizing with upstream glibc development. I have noticed that 2 strace tests fail: ++ printf '#%d: %s\n' 2 '[ ]{5}(1\.[01]|0\.9)[[:digit:]]{2} \+\+\+ exited with 0 \+\+\+' #2: [ ]{5}(1\.[01]|0\.9)[[:digit:]]{2} \+\+\+ exited with 0 \+\+\+ ++ cnt=3 ++ read -r pattern ++ test -z 1 ++ echo 'Actual output:' Actual output: ++ cat 0.000 execve("../sleep", ["../sleep", "1"], 0x7fffe6c50798 /* 61 vars */) = 0 1.330 +++ exited with 0 +++ ++ fail_ '../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=ms -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' ++ warn_ 'strace--relative-timestamps-ms.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=ms -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' ++ printf '%s\n' 'strace--relative-timestamps-ms.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=ms -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' strace--relative-timestamps-ms.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=ms -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch ++ exit 1 FAIL strace--relative-timestamps-ms.gen.test (exit status: 1) FAIL: strace--relative-timestamps-us.gen ++ printf '#%d: %s\n' 2 '[ ]{5}(1\.[01]|0\.9)[[:digit:]]{5} \+\+\+ exited with 0 \+\+\+' #2: [ ]{5}(1\.[01]|0\.9)[[:digit:]]{5} \+\+\+ exited with 0 \+\+\+ ++ cnt=3 ++ read -r pattern ++ test -z 1 ++ echo 'Actual output:' Actual output: ++ cat 0.000000 execve("../sleep", ["../sleep", "1"], 0x7fffd4940f08 /* 61 vars */) = 0 1.790001 +++ exited with 0 +++ ++ fail_ '../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=us -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' ++ warn_ 'strace--relative-timestamps-us.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=us -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' ++ printf '%s\n' 'strace--relative-timestamps-us.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=us -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch' strace--relative-timestamps-us.gen.test: failed test: ../../src/strace --relative-timestamps=us -eexecve ../sleep 1 output mismatch ++ exit 1 FAIL strace--relative-timestamps-us.gen.test (exit status: 1) ============================================================================ Testsuite summary for strace 6.4 ============================================================================ # TOTAL: 1304 # PASS: 1150 # SKIP: 152 # XFAIL: 0 # FAIL: 2 # XPASS: 0 # ERROR: 0 ============================================================================ See tests/test-suite.log Please report to strace-devel.io ============================================================================ make[5]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/strace-6.4/tests' make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check-am'. RPM build errors: make[5]: *** [Makefile:17652: test-suite.log] Error 1 make[4]: *** [Makefile:17760: check-TESTS] Error 2 make[3]: *** [Makefile:17827: check-am] Error 2 make[2]: *** [Makefile:17830: check] Error 2 make[1]: *** [Makefile:596: check-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:901: check] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GixbZK (%check) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GixbZK (%check) Child return code was: 1 Is there any way we can make these tests less prone to false positives in the Fedora Rawhide CI infrastructure? Reproducible: Always
strace 6.4 was built to Rawhide just a few days ago. Has something changed with the CI infrastructure so that sleep(1) now takes so long?
(In reply to Dmitry V. Levin from comment #1) > strace 6.4 was built to Rawhide just a few days ago. > Has something changed with the CI infrastructure so that sleep(1) now takes > so long? Let me explain a little more about the glibc Fedora Rawhide CI. This is the bodhi update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fd52ab13db The failing glibc Fedora Rawhide CI was "baseos-qe.koji-build.scratch-build.validation" This is the glibc Fedora Rawhide CI test: https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedoraproject.org/job/scratch-build-test/1013/console The test in question builds key packages in a side tag with the new glibc, and it does so using Koji to build scratch builds. What I think we are seeing is a loaded koji server where sleep takes longer to complete. There is no limit on how long sleep will take in this case and the tests will be prone to false positive. I want to keep strace in the list of packages we build as reverse dependencies because we have broken it in the past. Dmitry, What might you recommend to make the test results more stable under load?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle. Changing version to 39.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '39'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26. Fedora Linux 39 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.