From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] gnu: kwidgetsaddons: Fix test failure. Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:08:35 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZxm6-0008Hz-Ky for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:08:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZxm2-0001HF-D6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:08:41 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x243.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::243]:34688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZxm1-0001Ga-6C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:08:38 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x243.google.com with SMTP id j12so5080607ywb.1 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:08:36 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel , Danny Milosavljevic > Might (setenv "QT_QPA_PLATFORM" "offscreen") also be enough? Interesting, that also fixes the problem, but causes a new one... ********* Start testing of KDualActionTest ********* Config: Using QtTest library 5.7.0, Qt 5.7.0 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 shared (dynamic) release build; by GCC 4.9.3) PASS : KDualActionTest::initTestCase() PASS : KDualActionTest::testSetGuiItem() FAIL! : KDualActionTest::testSetIconForStates() Compared pointers are not the same Actual (action.inactiveIcon()): (nil) Expected (icon) : 0x65a4d0 Loc: [/tmp/guix-build-kwidgetsaddons-5.24.0.drv-0/kwidgetsaddons-5.24.0/autotests/kdualactiontest.cpp(56)] PASS : KDualActionTest::testSetActive() PASS : KDualActionTest::testTrigger() PASS : KDualActionTest::cleanupTestCase() Totals: 5 passed, 1 failed, 0 skipped, 0 blacklisted, 3ms ********* Finished testing of KDualActionTest ********* > Starting an Xvfb server and then not stopping it again is kinda ... extreme. Since the tests are run in a container, I'd expect all processes started inside the container to receive a sigterm when the container is (shutdown?). > Also, who says that :1 is free? Again since the tests are run in a container, I'd expect that there isn't a xserver running unless I explicitly start it. Are my assumptions wrong? Do you think it's worth tracking down the test failure when my solution works?