From murdoch@dunc@n @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Wed Jan 11 19:09:25 2023
From: murdoch@dunc@n @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:09:25 -0500
Subject: [Rd] rhub vs. CRAN fedora-*-devel, using armadillo & slapack
In-Reply-To: <30578c9825ff429baecb0be28fc8b778@irsn.fr>
References: <334d6d8de5094164a99c8d4b26d77246@irsn.fr>
 <72de7b54-ff87-166f-4f8a-2b91381488cb@insa-toulouse.fr>
 <ffef02ea-52ae-a27a-1a8e-3d2046fd092c@insa-toulouse.fr>
 <ba0f6126425d4a43a3e1e3b0009e4105@irsn.fr> <20230110220545.5d213d2d@Tarkus>
 <44168649-5146-9cb0-a416-fbdb8b020029@gmail.com>
 <8cb80424-2264-4faa-b16f-e137b9f85bd4@fau.de>
 <84e94d6c-3408-014a-3845-76e66e88a779@gmail.com>
 <30578c9825ff429baecb0be28fc8b778@irsn.fr>
Message-ID: <ab26f046-bf7c-465b-cf3e-cdccf6b05bcf@gmail.com>

On 11/01/2023 12:35 p.m., RICHET Yann wrote:
> Thank you all, for these advices.
> 
> So I try to fix OMP_THREADS, cleanup tests, and display explicitly what test is running by moving in tests/ instead of tests/testthat/...
> Next step should be to investigate blocking test using a reporter (maybe "list").
> For now, waiting for CRAN results...

I think Sebastian or my suggestion is easier than redoing all of your 
tests.  They are each one line changes.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> Yann
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
> Envoy??: mercredi 11 janvier 2023 00:36
> ??: Sebastian Meyer <seb.meyer at fau.de>; Ivan Krylov <krylov.r00t at gmail.com>; RICHET Yann <yann.richet at irsn.fr>
> Cc?: Pascal Hav? <pascal at haveneer.com>; R-devel at r-project.org
> Objet?: Re: [Rd] rhub vs. CRAN fedora-*-devel, using armadillo & slapack
> 
> On 10/01/2023 4:07 p.m., Sebastian Meyer wrote:
>> Am 10.01.23 um 21:28 schrieb Duncan Murdoch:
>>> On 10/01/2023 2:05 p.m., Ivan Krylov wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 16:27:53 +0000
>>>> RICHET Yann <yann.richet at irsn.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In facts, 10 threads are asked by armadillo for some LinAlg, which
>>>>> backs to two threads as warned.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right about your tests de-facto using two threads,
>>>> but it might be a good idea to _default_ to up to two threads in
>>>> tests and examples. This is especially valuable for third-party
>>>> developers who have to mass-test packages (one of which could be
>>>> rlibkriging) in parallel.
>>>>
>>>>> - is there any reason that could explain that fedora-*-devel is so
>>>>> slow for this package or compilation of Rcpp/testthat ?
>>>>
>>>> Compilation time is definitely not the reason. Something in tests/*
>>>> actually runs for 30 minutes by itself.
>>>>
>>>>> - is there any chance that I can get a deeper log of what happened ?
>>>>
>>>> If you split your tests into separate files under tests/*.R instead
>>>> of using a single tests/testthat.R calling the rest of the tests, R
>>>> will be able to show you the individual test file that hung and
>>>> maybe the line where it happened. (Also, you'll get per-file
>>>> timing.) But that is potentially a huge investment: you may have to
>>>> rewrite the tests to work outside the testthat harness, and you'd
>>>> also have to prepare another CRAN submission just to have those
>>>> tests run. It's also against CRAN policy to knowingly submit a package with unfixed ERRORs.
>>>>
>>>> (Currently, R can only tell you that the tests hung in the
>>>> test_check('rlibkriging') call in the tests/testthat.R, which isn't
>>>> precise enough.)
>>>
>>> You can specify a different "reporter" in the test_check() call, and
>>> it will print more useful information.? I don't think there's a
>>> perfect one, but
>>>
>>>    ? test_check('rlibkriging', reporter = "progress")
>>>
>>> should at least show you the tests that finished running before the
>>> timeout.
>>
>> I had similar problems with testthat and timeouts when mass-checking
>> packages on patched R versions. My notes say
>>
>>> ## testthat's 'LocationReporter' does cat() after each expectation ##
>>> so we can see results even if timeout is reached
>>> options(testthat.default_check_reporter = c("Location", "Check"))
>>
>> The help("LocationReporter") says: "This reporter simply prints the
>> location of every expectation and error. This is useful if you're
>> trying to figure out the source of a segfault, or you want to figure
>> out which code triggers a C/C++ breakpoint"
>>
>> HTH!
> 
> Yes, that looks like it would pin down the location of the problem.
> Here's some sample output from it:
> 
>     Running ?testthat.R? [41s/42s]
> Running the tests in ?tests/testthat.R? failed.
> Last 13 lines of output:
>     Start test: can use constructed calls in verify_output() (#945)
>       'test-verify-output.R:55' [success]
>     End test: can use constructed calls in verify_output() (#945)
> 
>     Start test: verify_output() doesn't use cli unicode by default
>       'test-verify-output.R:65' [success]
>       'test-verify-output.R:73' [success]
>     End test: verify_output() doesn't use cli unicode by default
> 
>     Start test: verify_output() handles carriage return
>       'test-verify-output.R:82' [success]
>     End test: verify_output() handles carriage return
> 
>     Error: Test failures
>     Execution halted
> 
> One other thing:  you enabled this by using
> 
>     options(testthat.default_check_reporter = c("Location", "Check"))
> 
> before running the tests; the package writer could do the same thing by using
> 
>     test_check('rlibkriging', reporter = c("Location", "Check"))
> 
> Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] rhub vs. CRAN fedora-*-devel, using armadillo & slapack
Duncan Murdoch