On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > I think you can do the same level of skipping with GIT_TEST_SKIP, > > though. My argument was just that adding a new mechanism does not make > > sense when we already have one. I.e., running: > > > > GIT_SKIP_TESTS=' > > t[123456789]* > > t0[^0]* > > t00[^016]* > > t000[469] > > t001[2459] > > t006[0248] > > ' make SANITIZE=leak test > > > > works already to do the same thing. The only thing we might want is a > > nicer syntax (e.g., to allow positive and negative patterns, or to read > > from a file). But that would benefit all users of GIT_SKIP_TESTS, not > > just people interested in leaks. > > A glob in this series is t13*config*, you can't do that with > GIT_SKIP_TESTS because it only includes the numeric part of the test, > i.e. t1300, not t1300-config, or t1306-xdg-files. That seems like a feature that GIT_SKIP_TESTS could learn (though IMHO just using the test number in your patterns is sufficient). > I would like to be able to compile with it and run "make test" without a > wall of failures by default, i.e. we should be able to tell regressions > from known-OK to get anywhere with it, but that's orthagonal to the > exact mechanism. Right, I definitely agree on the goal. I just don't see the need to add a new, very-specific mechanism. The skip-list above is gross and obviously not something you'd want to type. Driving it from a ci script is not too bad, but I agree people who want to leak-check locally would want an easy way to use it, too. That's why I suggested extending it to a file that could be easily specified (and possibly even auto-triggered in the Makefile by SANITIZE=leak). > > With GIT_SKIP_TESTS you obviously don't get a message saying "try > > skipping this test" when it fails. :) But IMHO that is not that big a > > deal. You'll get a test failure with good LSan output. If you are > > working on expanding leak-checker coverage, you already know about your > > options for skipping. If you're adding a new test that leaks, you might > > consider fixing the leak (though not always, if it's far from code > > you're touching). > > I do think it makes sense as a test mode test-lib.sh is aware of, > e.g. on obvious next step is to not fail everything right away, but just > let the test run and log all failures to a file, then e.g. fail one test > at the end, or if we're running in that mode collate all the callstacks > and emit a summary for the whole test run. That's a more compelling reason, if we did implement that feature. My hope was that all of this would be a temporary state, though, and we'd get to a point where you can simply run "make SANITIZE=leak test" and actually run all of the tests. And then such a feature would not be that interesting, because failures would be rare and cause for immediate human attention. -Peff
