-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 329
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
Add ruby 2.5 support #345
Comments
Thanks for links,etc. Re bisect, build & install for ruby takes a bit of time. I'll search thru your travis logs and see if I can narrow it down to a smaller range. A quick look showed that it passed with a trunk build as of 25-May, and I'm sure I can narrow further. If you have a look at my MinGW test results page (which isn't a log of all my tests), for every date listed, I've got the full build / install saved. I may also have additional builds not listed. Bottom line, I can narrow it down to the point where we/you will know where the issue is, or I can run a bisect on a smaller set... EDIT BELOW I've also got ruby_2_3 and ruby_2_4 stable branch builds, as they tend to update those in batches. I'll check against those also. If you know without checking, are there any gems that byebug uses that could effect this issue? Do you know if they check/test against trunk/head? |
No, |
Sorry, noticed that afterward. FYI, ruby has had an mswin (Visual C) build in their CI testing for a while, but they only recently added full testing. MinGW builds, which is what the vast majority of windows users have for Ruby, are not done by them. Currently, I've got a few patches that are needed, etc. IOW, someday, I may create a bisect script, but it will take a bit of dicing & chopping... But, as mentioned, I've got a lot of saved builds. At present, I'm between:
I've got a script I'm running, testing on runner_test.rb. I haven't yet tested from command line. I've got four more builds between those two. Once I narrow it down, can you bisect on *nix further? |
Absolutely, thanks for this! |
Well, I ran a few more builds, as this issue happened when I was also seeing varying failures, so I didn't save the builds. Won't do that again. Save.every.build.
Below are summaries/links of the commits, maybe the descriptions/patches may save you the time of the bisect.
I wrote some code to dump a few months of ruby commit info to a spreadsheet, as I got tired of cross referencing the SVN with commit SHA. Markdown links are a spreadsheet formula. I'll do the PR to add trunk tomorrow... |
@MSP-Greg Thanks a lot, you're really reducing the amount of work needed to understand & fix this. In my opinion, the most plausible canditate is
since we are using the "old way" here: Lines 746 to 747 in b491521
|
You're welcome.
Well, not being a c type, I'm certainly not going to jump into this code, or issues with int, enum, etc. |
Yeah, not asking you to. It was more of a written remainder for myself or anyone else wanting to give this a try 😃. |
Confirmed via https://github.com/deivid-rodriguez/ruby-bisect that
is indeed the culprit. |
Marking this issue with the "help wanted" label. Ruby 2.5 release approaches and I still can't find time to work on this... 😞 |
I digged into this a bit more. The previous culprit was a bug in
So next step is to bisect |
Well, I seem to be getting different results using Windows MinGW trunk. Below is a summary:
The 2 failures were:
Below is some commit info between the 2 failure group and the 'Stopped' group:
Also, bundler was acting up for the second time recently, and I bypassed it for compiling & running tests. IOW, all I used it for was the initial gem installing/loading, which is cached on Appveyor. I did the testing locally, as I've got several months of builds stored... HTH, Greg |
Thanks Greg! Sorry I forgot to mention that coverage tracking seems to have breaking changes as well in ruby 2.5, so we need to make sure we ignore that in these tests. We need to pass I run the second bisection and the new culprit is: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14104. In particular, https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14104#Compatibility-issues, I guess. |
Thanks,
60762 passes, 60767 fails, and, as you've mentioned, the issue is probably 60763. FYI, test times seem to be jumping around quite a bit. Seems that one of the test files is leaving artifacts that slow successive tests? As shown below:
|
Looks like the breaking change was made backwards-compatible, just for us. ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ |
I was just reading the issue at ruby-lang.org. Thanks to @ko1 for the fix, and @deivid-rodriguez for testing on Appveyor w/trunk. The current ruby-loco build has includes ko1's commit in case you want to force a test. Current Travis build is from yesterday, don't know if they update on Saturday, but they normally update within the next hour (17:00 UTC +/-) |
@yui-knk will send PR for ruby 2.5. With the following patch, it works on Ruby 2.5. But this patch is strongly connected with 2.5 behavior. So that @yui-knk will send better patch.
Please ping me freely :) Thanks, |
Problem description
Byebug doesn't yet fully support ruby 2.5.
Expected behavior
Full tests pass and byebug works.
Actual behavior
As of today, there's two failures in the test suite against ruby-head, and @MSP-Greg reports that standalone
byebug
fails to start against it.Steps to reproduce the problem
Install a build of trunk's ruby and run byebug against it. Using https://github.com/deivid-rodriguez/ruby-bisect against
byebug/script/ci.sh
Lines 1 to 6 in a37248a
could be useful to find out when and how the problem was introduced.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: