-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.7k
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
x/build: "unexpected stale targets" on plan9-arm #49691
Comments
The error message is not that helpful for the uninitiated. What exactly does "build ID mismatch" mean? Is the staleness algorithm documented somewhere? It can sometimes happen that make.rc is run on one builder, the result is saved as a snapshot and used to run 'dist test' on another builder. If the two builders are not configured exactly the same, is that likely to result in stale targets? I would hope not, because the snapshot contains all the source, object code, and toolchain, so it should be self-consistent in any environment. But it's hard to be certain without a definition of what "stale" is supposed to mean. In some of the logs, there is clearly some other filesystem-related failure first (some bits of the tree have disappeared), which is likely what triggers the stale target report. But in other examples, the stale target report seems to be the first or only thing that has gone wrong. |
The build ID is a hash of the inputs to the build: |
The hash inputs include any relevant flags, tool versions, and whatever directory information will end up in the binary (which is itself a function of |
In the latest failure I see this line:
Do all of the builders end up with the same working directory ( In #33598 we found that the |
There are two sets of plan9-arm Raspberry Pi builders, run by @0intro and myself, running slightly different scripts. Mine all use That won't fix all cases, though. For example in this one, the tests are running immediately after building the whole system on the same machine, and getting stale dependencies on |
Yes, I'll try that. |
No occurrences since June. Probably fixed?
|
Found new dashboard test flakes for:
2023-02-27 12:43 plan9-arm go@85b55c79 (log)
|
Found new dashboard test flakes for:
2023-05-23 11:36 plan9-arm go@5322e66a (log)
|
Found new dashboard test flakes for:
2023-08-22 22:22 plan9-arm go@291a32aa (log)
|
Found new dashboard test flakes for:
2023-09-15 17:51 plan9-arm go@6192f461 (log)
|
greplogs --dashboard -md -l -e '(?ms)\Aplan9-.*go tool dist: unexpected stale targets' --since=2021-10-09
2021-11-05T18:20:07-53bab19/plan9-arm
2021-11-02T20:59:34-79024cf/plan9-arm
2021-11-02T18:35:22-0b37bd9/plan9-arm
2021-11-02T05:35:11-6f327f7/plan9-arm
2021-10-29T22:29:31-c812b97/plan9-arm
2021-10-28T20:43:02-e741e2f/plan9-arm
2021-10-26T05:05:24-23fdd7f/plan9-arm
2021-10-25T18:46:45-f47335e/plan9-arm
2021-10-25T17:02:16-52b10ab/plan9-arm
2021-10-20T19:30:13-3ff39c5/plan9-arm
2021-10-20T19:29:12-4320949/plan9-arm
2021-10-19T18:43:12-d944984/plan9-arm
2021-10-19T18:18:37-9820602/plan9-arm
2021-10-19T08:44:22-1e49210/plan9-arm
2021-10-14T01:51:22-276fb27/plan9-arm
2021-10-13T16:39:23-3986e5c/plan9-arm
2021-10-12T21:15:50-3d051ba/plan9-arm
2021-10-10T15:11:26-d2d21d9/plan9-arm
2021-10-09T23:29:26-b99abf3/plan9-arm
@millerresearch, is this possibly due to a filesystem issue on the builder? I'm not sure how else we would be ending up with mismatched build IDs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: