Skip to content
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

All tests fail with --spawn_strategy=remote #942

Closed
schroederc opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

All tests fail with --spawn_strategy=remote #942

schroederc opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 2 comments
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: bug
Milestone

Comments

@schroederc
Copy link
Contributor

Given build --hazelcast_node=127.0.0.1:5701 --spawn_strategy=remote in the .bazelrc config, all tests run with bazel test will report failures (even though the log suggests they succeeded). On the other hand, bazel build //... completes successfully with the same options. Adding test --spawn_strategy=sandboxed to .bazelrc will allow the tests to succeed again.

@damienmg damienmg added type: bug P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) labels Feb 19, 2016
@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

/cc @hhclam @philwo

@philwo philwo added this to the 0.6 milestone Dec 9, 2016
bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 7, 2017
All spawn strategies already treat all normal outputs as optional. Bazel checks
at the action level whether all action outputs are created, but does not check
at the spawn level. Spawn.getOptionalOutputs is therefore unnecessary, and
removed in this change.

The only place where this was set was in StandaloneTestStrategy, which now
specifies the full set of outputs, which is now computed by TestRunnerAction.
The internal test strategy implementations are also updated in this change.

While I'm at it, also remove the use of BaseSpawn and use SimpleSpawn instead.

This may go some way towards fixing #1413 and #942.

--
PiperOrigin-RevId: 149397100
MOS_MIGRATED_REVID=149397100
@ulfjack
Copy link
Contributor

ulfjack commented Mar 14, 2017

Let me mark this as a dupe of #1413.

@ulfjack ulfjack closed this as completed Mar 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants