Do I read this correctly that portlib timed out?
We have seen quite a few port lib issues in the past.
Whenever I see one of those I rerun the tests to obtain a green tick, which is not great but haven’t had time to look into those.
portlib also sometimes fails in CS unfortunately.
I returned to work recently and am putting a CI plan for this year, so hopefully I will have written down soon.
I’ve seen portlib test timeout once too, but can’t trigger it reliably
Yes that’s what it looks like to me
Could be yet another unreliable test https://github.com/racket/racket/runs/1663105367#step:9:40 https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/5ee0f739573bcfc1d770d83177c56e4def264eb4/pkgs/racket-test/tests/racket/contract/recursive-contract.rkt#L125\|https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/5ee0f739573bcfc1d770d83177c56e4def264eb4/pkgs/racket-test/tests/racket/contract/recursive-contract.rkt#L1[…]25
Seen that before and @mflatt fixed it in https://github.com/racket/racket/commit/c8877055da6ff44fa562f0708f49e14b83c9c823
Turns out it can still fail.
It’s a windows box, possibly slower than the Linux VMs so… might be that.
Well, or that there are fewer Windows VM resources than Linux VMs
Have anyone seen this before? https://github.com/sorawee/racket/runs/1661989019?check_suite_focus=true#step:10:109
((file) (#f #t (#<procedure:byte-ready?> #<input-port:name>)))
@shu—hung right - or that.
@sorawee never seen a failure in that section.
nope
I bumped into another portlib failure today too. https://github.com/shhyou/racket/runs/1665165427?check_suite_focus=true#step:9:107 Errors were:
Section (got expected (call)))
((portlib) (#"\32\203]o\352Mj\4\2126z\253\310l\231\367\32\203]o\352Mj\4\2126z\253\310l\231\367\366\366\326\22\211=\233\345\237\3161\252\37\223\244J\364\32\26\260\31Z6<#F)\204\266\265\2512\363C\307\203\3433T\347\343\214O\201mX\352F\231\350\232b/\330\333\315\306\261YP\371\255\6Y+7O\236%\270\231v\\\275`\374O\27'\210C\26\20\315\362\354\304\245\16N\177\366\371Q\217X\346\f\32&\353\f\0314'Q0\2707\0316t!;\267\340\260\305\343\3100}d{\204f\374\214" #"\343\3073\327\364\2349\3069I\265;B&v\224\32\203]o\352Mj\4\2126z\253\310l\231\367\366\366\326\22\211=\233\345\237\3161\252\37\223\244J\364\32\26\260\31Z6<#F)\204\266\265\2512\363C\307\203\3433T\347\343\214O\201mX\352F\231\350\232b/\330\333\315\306\261YP\371\255\6Y+7O\236%\270\231v\\\275`\374O\27'\210C\26\20\315\362\354\304\245\16N\177\366\371Q\217X\346\f\32&\353\f\0314'Q0\2707\0316t!;\267\340\260\305\343\3100}d{\204f\374\214" (#<procedure:read-bytes> 160 #<input-port:localhost>))) I suppose the test is this one, which is kind of surprising https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/a5744bec622176fee749c920e3b55cf816a6325f/pkgs/racket-test-core/tests/racket/portlib.rktl#L1360
@shu—hung that’s the type of failure I have seen multiple times that I mentioned earlier.
Sadly the logs of the runs in the comments have expired
To be fair there was not much to see.
You see a sequence of section results all good and then that after portlib. There’s really not much verbosity
We need some sort of trophy room where we award virtual trophies to people fixing the long outstanding problems.
Like a page racket-ci/trophyroom somewhere. :slightly_smiling_face:
Are you going to be the one?