[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#1068078: FTBFS on armel: shiboken2:smart::smart_pointer Newly detected Real test failure!



Hi,

(CCing debian-arm@l.d.o. Please CC me back as I’m not subscribed.)

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 02:11:32PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> Source: pyside2
> Version: 5.15.12-6.1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: ftbfs
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=pyside2&arch=armel&ver=5.15.12-6.1&stamp=1711789575&raw=0
> 
> RUN 2: Test project /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/pyside3_build/py3.11-qt5.15.10-32bit-
> relwithdebinfo/shiboken2
> RUN 2:     Start 181: smart_smart_pointer
> RUN 2: 1/1 Test #181: smart_smart_pointer ..............***Failed    0.23 sec
> RUN 2: ....Running garbage collector for reference test
> RUN 2: FFF
> RUN 2: ======================================================================
> RUN 2: FAIL: testObjSmartPointer
> (__main__.SmartPointerTests.testObjSmartPointer)
> RUN 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> RUN 2: Traceback (most recent call last):
> RUN 2:   File
> "/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/sources/shiboken2/tests/smartbinding/smart_pointer_test.py",
> line 94, in testObjSmartPointer
> RUN 2:     self.assertEqual(integerCount(), 1)
> RUN 2: AssertionError: 2 != 1
> [...]

I tried to build pyside2 on two porterboxes, amdahl.d.o and abel.d.o, and on
both it built successfully (in sid_armel-dchroot).

I also ran the test manually several times after build, and it was successful
too:

  (sid_armel-dchroot)mitya57@abel:~/pyside2-5.15.12/pyside3_build/py3.11-qt5.15.10-32bit-relwithdebinfo/shiboken2$ ctest --tests-regex '^(smart_smart_pointer)$'
  Test project /home/mitya57/pyside2-5.15.12/pyside3_build/py3.11-qt5.15.10-32bit-relwithdebinfo/shiboken2
      Start 181: smart_smart_pointer
  1/1 Test #181: smart_smart_pointer ..............   Passed    0.48 sec

  100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

  Total Test time (real) =   0.53 sec

Does anyone have ideas why there may be such difference between the buildds
(arm-conova-01, arm-arm-03) and the porter boxes?

It’s worth noting that the armhf build ran on the same arm-conova-01, and it
was successful.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: