‘guix pack’ shell tests fail

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Maxim Cournoyer
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Ludovic Courtès
Severity
important
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 27 Feb 2023 22:46
‘guix pack’ shell tests fail
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
871qmahjcy.fsf@inria.fr
The two tests/guix-pack*.sh tests fail:

Toggle snippet (50 lines)
$ make check TESTS="tests/guix-pack.sh tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh" -j5
make check-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
Making check in po/guix
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix/po/guix'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix/po/guix'
Making check in po/packages
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix/po/packages'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix/po/packages'
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
make check-TESTS check-local
make[3]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for 'check-local'.
make[4]: Entering directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
FAIL: tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh
FAIL: tests/guix-pack.sh
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for GNU Guix 1.3.0.28826-3cff7-dirty
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 2
# PASS: 0
# SKIP: 0
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 2
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
============================================================================
See ./test-suite.log
Please report to bug-guix@gnu.org
============================================================================
make[4]: *** [Makefile:6051: test-suite.log] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
make[3]: *** [Makefile:6159: check-TESTS] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:6408: check-am] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:5936: check-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ludo/src/guix'
make: *** [Makefile:6410: check] Error 2
$ git log |head -1
commit cf9e0508b26196dc985302776d860a0359652c59

In both cases this is because $test_directory is read-only:

Toggle snippet (14 lines)
+ drv1=' /home/ludo/src/guix/test-tmp/store/6wrnnnab33wv950cflswi8ffncwr99b0-guile-tarball-pack.tar.gz.drv'
++ guix pack --no-grafts -n --with-source=guile=/tmp/tmp.olhfx3CkHh guile
++ grep 'pack.*.drv'
accepted connection from pid 30805, user ludo
+ drv2=' /home/ludo/src/guix/test-tmp/store/f909hi2ywyyvy7l5p4ibmy26alr7d18d-guile-tarball-pack.tar.gz.drv'
+ test -n ' /home/ludo/src/guix/test-tmp/store/6wrnnnab33wv950cflswi8ffncwr99b0-guile-tarball-pack.tar.gz.drv'
+ test ' /home/ludo/src/guix/test-tmp/store/6wrnnnab33wv950cflswi8ffncwr99b0-guile-tarball-pack.tar.gz.drv' '!=' ' /home/ludo/src/guix/test-tmp/store/f909hi2ywyyvy7l5p4ibmy26alr7d18d-guile-tarball-pack.tar.gz.drv'
+ cat
./tests/guix-pack.sh: line 124: /tmp/tmp.olhfx3CkHh/manifest1.scm: Permission denied
+ chmod -Rf +w /tmp/tmp.olhfx3CkHh
+ rm -rf /tmp/tmp.olhfx3CkHh
FAIL tests/guix-pack.sh (exit status: 1)

… and:

Toggle snippet (7 lines)
+ run_without_store /tmp/tmp.c5oSwOgOOD/Bin/sed --version
./tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh: line 85: /tmp/tmp.c5oSwOgOOD/output: Permission denied
+ chmod -Rf +w /tmp/tmp.c5oSwOgOOD
+ rm -rf /tmp/tmp.c5oSwOgOOD
FAIL tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh (exit status: 1)

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 28 Feb 2023 00:07
87wn42emh8.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> In both cases this is because $test_directory is read-only:

This in turn is due to a permission change in generated tarballs:

Toggle snippet (21 lines)
$ guix describe
Generation 248 Feb 27 2023 16:36:12 (current)
guix cf9e050
repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
branch: master
commit: cf9e0508b26196dc985302776d860a0359652c59
$ guix pack hello
/gnu/store/k0mjzvv76s0yn4r4mwzy6mvf71wxpbg2-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz
ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ tar tzvf /gnu/store/k0mjzvv76s0yn4r4mwzy6mvf71wxpbg2-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz |head
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/include/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/
-r--r--r-- root/root 2056 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/crtbegin.o

Compared to:

Toggle snippet (16 lines)
$ guix time-machine --commit=v1.4.0 -- pack hello
/gnu/store/vjjavmn16mxzgrlfawjcgq5j4iqm7609-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz
$ tar tzvf /gnu/store/vjjavmn16mxzgrlfawjcgq5j4iqm7609-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz | head
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/
drwxrwxr-t root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/include/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/
dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/
-r--r--r-- root/root 2056 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/crtbegin.o
tar: stdout: write error

That’s an acceptable change IMO, introduced in
68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5. However, the tests were
evidently not run after that change, which is problematic.

Anyway, fixed in 92a0e60a963a54230e400c5c2ae585205489bf35. Both tests
now pass for me.

One issue with 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5, though, is that
it introduces a copy of the profile being built to the store
(“profile-directory”). This was purposefully avoided before because
it’s very I/O-intensive, space-consuming, and puts more pressure on the
store. It’s a pattern we avoided for system images too, having noticed
its cost (commit 7f75a7ec08975eb6d6e01db61bd6b91f447f655e for instance.)

We may need to come back to a single derivation well or creating packs
for big profiles will be too costly.

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 28 Feb 2023 00:07
control message for bug #61853
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87v8jmemgw.fsf@gnu.org
severity 61853 important
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 28 Feb 2023 00:07
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ttz6emgs.fsf@gnu.org
close 61853
quit
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 28 Feb 2023 03:15
Re: bug#61853: ‘guix pack’ shell tests fail
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 61853@debbugs.gnu.org)
87v8jmilhl.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (48 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> skribis:
>
>> In both cases this is because $test_directory is read-only:
>
> This in turn is due to a permission change in generated tarballs:
>
> $ guix describe
> Generation 248 Feb 27 2023 16:36:12 (current)
> guix cf9e050
> repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
> branch: master
> commit: cf9e0508b26196dc985302776d860a0359652c59
> $ guix pack hello
> /gnu/store/k0mjzvv76s0yn4r4mwzy6mvf71wxpbg2-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz
> ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ tar tzvf /gnu/store/k0mjzvv76s0yn4r4mwzy6mvf71wxpbg2-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz |head
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/include/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/
> -r--r--r-- root/root 2056 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/crtbegin.o
>
>
> Compared to:
>
> $ guix time-machine --commit=v1.4.0 -- pack hello
> /gnu/store/vjjavmn16mxzgrlfawjcgq5j4iqm7609-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz
> $ tar tzvf /gnu/store/vjjavmn16mxzgrlfawjcgq5j4iqm7609-hello-tarball-pack.tar.gz | head
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/
> drwxrwxr-t root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/include/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/
> dr-xr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/
> -r--r--r-- root/root 2056 1970-01-01 01:00 ./gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.3.0/crtbegin.o
> tar: stdout: write error
>
> That’s an acceptable change IMO, introduced in
> 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5. However, the tests were
> evidently not run after that change, which is problematic.

Interesting. I had done all my testing using tests/pack.scm (and the
new tests/rpm.scm), and overlooked tests/pack.sh.

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Anyway, fixed in 92a0e60a963a54230e400c5c2ae585205489bf35. Both tests
> now pass for me.

Thanks (again)!

Toggle quote (10 lines)
> One issue with 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5, though, is that
> it introduces a copy of the profile being built to the store
> (“profile-directory”). This was purposefully avoided before because
> it’s very I/O-intensive, space-consuming, and puts more pressure on the
> store. It’s a pattern we avoided for system images too, having noticed
> its cost (commit 7f75a7ec08975eb6d6e01db61bd6b91f447f655e for instance.)
>
> We may need to come back to a single derivation well or creating packs
> for big profiles will be too costly.

I agree it's expensive; we're trading IO for storage though, so the case
of generating the same pack in multiple format, it could be beneficial
by only computing the union directory once. The real motivation was
avoiding code duplication though; perhaps this could be accomplished by
moving the common logic to (guix build pack-utils)?

--
Thanks,
Maxim
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 Mar 2023 11:43
(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)(address . 61853@debbugs.gnu.org)
87cz5qyv10.fsf@gnu.org
Hi Maxim,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

Toggle quote (7 lines)
>> That’s an acceptable change IMO, introduced in
>> 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5. However, the tests were
>> evidently not run after that change, which is problematic.
>
> Interesting. I had done all my testing using tests/pack.scm (and the
> new tests/rpm.scm), and overlooked tests/pack.sh.

…

Toggle quote (5 lines)
>> Anyway, fixed in 92a0e60a963a54230e400c5c2ae585205489bf35. Both tests
>> now pass for me.
>
> Thanks (again)!

To be clear, it’s time-consuming and stressful. That’s not sane and I’d
rather not work that way.

Toggle quote (16 lines)
>> One issue with 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5, though, is that
>> it introduces a copy of the profile being built to the store
>> (“profile-directory”). This was purposefully avoided before because
>> it’s very I/O-intensive, space-consuming, and puts more pressure on the
>> store. It’s a pattern we avoided for system images too, having noticed
>> its cost (commit 7f75a7ec08975eb6d6e01db61bd6b91f447f655e for instance.)
>>
>> We may need to come back to a single derivation well or creating packs
>> for big profiles will be too costly.
>
> I agree it's expensive; we're trading IO for storage though, so the case
> of generating the same pack in multiple format, it could be beneficial
> by only computing the union directory once. The real motivation was
> avoiding code duplication though; perhaps this could be accomplished by
> moving the common logic to (guix build pack-utils)?

Yes, that’s a good idea. There’s already (guix build pack) and I guess
we could move roughly the contents of ‘self-contained-tarball/builder’
and ‘populate-profile-root’ there.

How does that sound?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 4 Mar 2023 04:22
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 61853@debbugs.gnu.org)
87bkl942vx.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (25 lines)
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> That’s an acceptable change IMO, introduced in
>>> 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5. However, the tests were
>>> evidently not run after that change, which is problematic.
>>
>> Interesting. I had done all my testing using tests/pack.scm (and the
>> new tests/rpm.scm), and overlooked tests/pack.sh.
>
> …
>
>>> Anyway, fixed in 92a0e60a963a54230e400c5c2ae585205489bf35. Both tests
>>> now pass for me.
>>
>> Thanks (again)!
>
> To be clear, it’s time-consuming and stressful. That’s not sane and I’d
> rather not work that way.

Again, thanks for fixing up after me, but you didn't need to put
yourself under such pressure. As the author of the problematic change,
the responsibility of fixing it was on me; I understand this well.

Toggle quote (22 lines)
>>> One issue with 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5, though, is that
>>> it introduces a copy of the profile being built to the store
>>> (“profile-directory”). This was purposefully avoided before because
>>> it’s very I/O-intensive, space-consuming, and puts more pressure on the
>>> store. It’s a pattern we avoided for system images too, having noticed
>>> its cost (commit 7f75a7ec08975eb6d6e01db61bd6b91f447f655e for instance.)
>>>
>>> We may need to come back to a single derivation well or creating packs
>>> for big profiles will be too costly.
>>
>> I agree it's expensive; we're trading IO for storage though, so the case
>> of generating the same pack in multiple format, it could be beneficial
>> by only computing the union directory once. The real motivation was
>> avoiding code duplication though; perhaps this could be accomplished by
>> moving the common logic to (guix build pack-utils)?
>
> Yes, that’s a good idea. There’s already (guix build pack) and I guess
> we could move roughly the contents of ‘self-contained-tarball/builder’
> and ‘populate-profile-root’ there.
>
> How does that sound?

Sounds good. See an implementation in #61949, to which you should be
CC'd already (per 'etc/teams.scm cc-members HEAD^ HEAD').

--
Thanks,
Maxim
?