Skip to content

Conversation

@lurtz
Copy link
Contributor

@lurtz lurtz commented Aug 15, 2025

The devcontainer eases setup a lot and creates a reproducible environment.

Currently some tests fail in the devcontainer, which I did not debug yet.

@lurtz lurtz force-pushed the use-devcontainer branch from aed8884 to dc20110 Compare August 15, 2025 20:16
@lurtz lurtz marked this pull request as ready for review August 15, 2025 20:17
@lurtz lurtz mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2025
@lurtz lurtz force-pushed the use-devcontainer branch from 6a4704f to 9655388 Compare August 18, 2025 14:39
@lurtz
Copy link
Contributor Author

lurtz commented Aug 18, 2025

@bl81hi Can you test this one with Docker on Windows? If this works we can simplify the devcontainers in the other repos.

@bl81hi
Copy link

bl81hi commented Aug 18, 2025

@bl81hi Can you test this one with Docker on Windows? If this works we can simplify the devcontainers in the other repos.

lgtm - thanks a lot!

nradakovic
nradakovic previously approved these changes Sep 25, 2025
The devcontainer eases setup a lot and create a reproducible
environment.
This helps figuring out issues, which are only seen in CI.
@4og
Copy link
Member

4og commented Sep 26, 2025

@lurtz, I see the the workflow changes to use the devcontainer were removed in the last force-push. Is there a particular reason?

Regarding

Currently some tests fail in the devcontainer, which I did not debug yet.

Are you referring to these two tests? #7

@fbaeuerle
Copy link
Contributor

@lurtz, I see the the workflow changes to use the devcontainer were removed in the last force-push. Is there a particular reason?

Regarding

Currently some tests fail in the devcontainer, which I did not debug yet.

Are you referring to these two tests? #7

I can recall that it was failing two tests related to setgid/setuid (in unistdTest.cpp). I suspect that they would pass if the container was run in privileged mode. So no, probably not related to #7

@lurtz
Copy link
Contributor Author

lurtz commented Sep 26, 2025

@lurtz, I see the the workflow changes to use the devcontainer were removed in the last force-push. Is there a particular reason?

The problem still is that the devcontainer has no release to which CI could be pinned. This was also reverted in eclipse-score/communication@58aaf80

When we have container versions, there should be no argument anymore not to use the container in CI.

Are you referring to these two tests? #7

Yes those are failing.

I suspect that they would pass if the container was run in privileged mode. So no, probably not related to #7

This did not work, but the error is still the same:

vscode ➜ /workspaces/baselibs (use-devcontainer) $ bazel test //score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception:abortsuponexception_toolchain_test
INFO: Analyzed target //score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception:abortsuponexception_toolchain_test (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured).
FAIL: //score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception:abortsuponexception_toolchain_test (see /var/cache/bazel/1e588e1bfcce62ea541297aa1fef1b9f/execroot/_main/bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/testlogs/score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception/abortsuponexception_toolchain_test/test.log)
INFO: From Testing //score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception:abortsuponexception_toolchain_test:
==================== Test output for //score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception:abortsuponexception_toolchain_test:
Running main() from gmock_main.cc
[==========] Running 24 tests from 8 test suites.
[----------] Global test environment set-up.
[----------] 3 tests from TestSafeExcept/0, where TypeParam = score::(anonymous namespace)::SizeTThrower
[ RUN      ] TestSafeExcept/0.AllocationOfExceptionAbortsExecutionImmediately
score/language/safecpp/aborts_upon_exception/aborts_upon_exception_test.cpp:155: Failure
Death test: code_snippet()
    Result: threw an exception.
 Error msg:
[  DEATH   ] 

[  FAILED  ] TestSafeExcept/0.AllocationOfExceptionAbortsExecutionImmediately, where TypeParam = score::(anonymous namespace)::SizeTThrower (1 ms)

@lurtz
Copy link
Contributor Author

lurtz commented Sep 26, 2025

This seems to have been done now with 6f80c63 and a626546

@lurtz lurtz closed this Sep 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants