-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Enable close_read_wakes_up
test on Windows
#94714
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Mar 7, 2022
@bors r+ rollup=iffy Let's try it and keep an eye on spurious failures in CI (cc @rust-lang/infra), if we see an uptick should be easy enough to revert. It's been quite some time since the initial disabling so it seems plausible that the problems have gone away now. |
📌 Commit 24ec0f2 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Mar 8, 2022
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2022
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#94689 (Use impl substs in `#[rustc_on_unimplemented]`) - rust-lang#94714 (Enable `close_read_wakes_up` test on Windows) - rust-lang#94723 (Add core::hint::must_use) - rust-lang#94724 (unix: Avoid name conversions in `remove_dir_all_recursive`) - rust-lang#94730 (Reverted atomic_mut_ptr feature removal causing compilation break) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2022
…_up_test_sgx_platform, r=dtolnay Ignore `close_read_wakes_up` test on SGX platform PR rust-lang#94714 enabled the `close_read_wakes_up` test for all platforms. This is incorrect. This test should be ignored at least for the SGX platform. cc: `@mzohreva` `@jethrogb`
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2022
…_up_test_sgx_platform, r=dtolnay Ignore `close_read_wakes_up` test on SGX platform PR rust-lang#94714 enabled the `close_read_wakes_up` test for all platforms. This is incorrect. This test should be ignored at least for the SGX platform. cc: ``@mzohreva`` ``@jethrogb``
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I wonder if we could/should try enabling this again? It was closed by #38867 due to #31657. I've tried running this test (along with other tests) on my machine a number of times and haven't seen this fail yet,
Caveat: the worst that can happen is this succeeds initially but then causes random hangs in CI. This is not a great failure mode and would be a reason not to do this.
If this does work out, closes #39006
r? @Mark-Simulacrum