ben at well-typed.com
Wed Oct 9 11:39:10 UTC 2019
Unfortunately T13615 is indeed known to be fragile. This is tracked as #17269, ss you discovered. This is especially scary given that the test tests some rather subtle RTS logic. It's been on my list of things to investigate but unfortunately I've not been able to reproduce the failure locally so progress has been slow.
Given that it seems to fail fairly reliably on CI in some cases we probably ought to mark it as fragile.
Note that it's not quite true that fragile test outcomes are no longer tracked. We maintain a database of test outcomes from CI runs which includes both passing and failing ribs of fragile tests. I've written about this infrastructure here .
On October 9, 2019 4:45:57 AM EDT, Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:
><https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/173504> tells me that T13615
>failed -- but only in DEBUG mode. My patch is nowhere near this code.
>Is this a new fragile test?
>The number of fragile tests seems to be growing quickly. And once a
>test is labeled fragile, we're essentially no longer tracking the test,
>if I understand correctly. So that's a bit unfortunate.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs