The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

alistairgrant
Hi Esteban & Marcus,

I'm getting repeated validation failures for:

https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431


It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.

Do you know if this is happening on other tests?


Thanks very much,
Alistair

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Marcus Denker-4


> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>
> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>
> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>
>
> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>
> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?

I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).

So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.

Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
fail due to different reasons…

And I have no idea why.

(And yes, we al know that
1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
   even though it should not.

The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
hope it will get better….)

        Marcus

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

alistairgrant
Hi Marcus,

On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>
>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>
>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>
>>
>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>
>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>
> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>
> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>
> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
> fail due to different reasons…
>
> And I have no idea why.
>
> (And yes, we al know that
> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>    even though it should not.
>
> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
> hope it will get better….)

Thanks for the update.

I took a look at the failures and it appears that

BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait

are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
traits to local methods.

I'll try and track down when the change was introduced and by whom,
but hopefully it is just a matter of updating the tests.

Cheers,
Alistair

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Marcus Denker-4


> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Marcus,
>
> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>
>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>
>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>
>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>
>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>
>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>
>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>> fail due to different reasons…
>>
>> And I have no idea why.
>>
>> (And yes, we al know that
>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>   even though it should not.
>>
>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>> hope it will get better….)
>
> Thanks for the update.
>

Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...

> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>
> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>
> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
> traits to local methods.
>
Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
as there are errors even in the main image.

The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
Pharo6 fail.

What needs to be done?

-> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
-> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
-> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).

As I said: this is a full time job…

        Marcus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Pavel Krivanek-3
2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:

>
>
>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>
>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>
>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>>
>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>>
>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>
>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>
>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>>   even though it should not.
>>>
>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>> hope it will get better….)
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>
> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>
>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>
>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>
>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>> traits to local methods.
>>
> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
> as there are errors even in the main image.
>
> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
> Pharo6 fail.
>
> What needs to be done?
>
> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).

I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...

-- Pavel

>
> As I said: this is a full time job…
>
>         Marcus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Marcus Denker-4

>>
>> What needs to be done?
>>
>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>
> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them…
>
Yes, true.

        Marcus



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Stephane Ducasse-3
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
Hi pavel

when I'm back can you explain to me because I did not get it :).

Stef


On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Pavel Krivanek
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>
>>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>>
>>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>>>
>>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>>>
>>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>>
>>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>>
>>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>>>   even though it should not.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>>> hope it will get better….)
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>>
>>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>>
>>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>>
>>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>>> traits to local methods.
>>>
>> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
>> as there are errors even in the main image.
>>
>> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
>> Pharo6 fail.
>>
>> What needs to be done?
>>
>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>
> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...
>
> -- Pavel
>
>>
>> As I said: this is a full time job…
>>
>>         Marcus
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Pavel Krivanek-3
2018-03-05 14:14 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
> Hi pavel
>
> when I'm back can you explain to me because I did not get it :).

:) it is simple. If you want to ignore issues that the slice is not
adding, you need to know which of them to ignore. That's why the
original monkey run all the validations twice - first time to collect
a list of failing tests in the fresh unchanged image and then with the
slice or configuration loaded. So it doubled the issue validation
time.
There are several alternative strategies like to cache the failing
test results for every build and use them for validations but the best
strategy is simply to keep the amount of failing tests in the clean
image on the zero level and force people to keep the system clean. The
original monkey hasn't exposed the list of ignored tests. So it was
possible that some test was ignored because of a temporal network
issue but for the second time it failed for o good reason and you even
didn't know.

Cheers,
-- Pavel

>
> Stef
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Pavel Krivanek
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>
>>>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>>>>
>>>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>>>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>>>
>>>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>>>>   even though it should not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>>>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>>>> hope it will get better….)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>>>
>>>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>>>
>>>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>>>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>>>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>>>
>>>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>>>> traits to local methods.
>>>>
>>> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
>>> as there are errors even in the main image.
>>>
>>> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
>>> Pharo6 fail.
>>>
>>> What needs to be done?
>>>
>>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>>
>> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
>> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...
>>
>> -- Pavel
>>
>>>
>>> As I said: this is a full time job…
>>>
>>>         Marcus
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Nicolas Anquetil
this sounds a bit like smart-test (that tries to identify the tests to
re-run after a method is changed)

Smarttest can work

- on dynamic data: first run the tests to know what test cause what
methods to be executed; then if such method is modified, re-run the
associated tests

- on static data: analyse senders of a method recursively to find the
tests that could possibly call it


1- we are doing now experiment to find out what method (static or
dynamic) is best.
Surprisingly, the static method gives very good results (often better
than dynamic) even if we all know that senders-of is not always very
precise in smalltalk

2- may be something similar could be used to find out in the monkey what
failing tests are caused by a new slice ? (going back from the changes
in the slice to the tests, or forward from the failing test toward the
changes in the slice ...)

nicolas


On 05/03/2018 14:29, Pavel Krivanek wrote:

> 2018-03-05 14:14 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi pavel
>>
>> when I'm back can you explain to me because I did not get it :).
> :) it is simple. If you want to ignore issues that the slice is not
> adding, you need to know which of them to ignore. That's why the
> original monkey run all the validations twice - first time to collect
> a list of failing tests in the fresh unchanged image and then with the
> slice or configuration loaded. So it doubled the issue validation
> time.
> There are several alternative strategies like to cache the failing
> test results for every build and use them for validations but the best
> strategy is simply to keep the amount of failing tests in the clean
> image on the zero level and force people to keep the system clean. The
> original monkey hasn't exposed the list of ignored tests. So it was
> possible that some test was ignored because of a temporal network
> issue but for the second time it failed for o good reason and you even
> didn't know.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Pavel Krivanek
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>>>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>>>>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>>>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>>>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>>>>>    even though it should not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>>>>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>>>>> hope it will get better….)
>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>>>>
>>>>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>>>>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>>>>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>>>>
>>>>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>>>>> traits to local methods.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
>>>> as there are errors even in the main image.
>>>>
>>>> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
>>>> Pharo6 fail.
>>>>
>>>> What needs to be done?
>>>>
>>>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>>>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>>>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>>>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>>> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
>>> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...
>>>
>>> -- Pavel
>>>
>>>> As I said: this is a full time job…
>>>>
>>>>          Marcus

--
Nicolas Anquetil
RMod team -- Inria Lille


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The 6.1 Space Monkey is unhappy

Stephane Ducasse-3
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2018-03-05 14:14 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi pavel
>>
>> when I'm back can you explain to me because I did not get it :).
>
> :) it is simple. If you want to ignore issues that the slice is not
> adding, you need to know which of them to ignore. That's why the
> original monkey run all the validations twice - first time to collect
> a list of failing tests in the fresh unchanged image and then with the
> slice or configuration loaded. So it doubled the issue validation
> time.

It sounds good :)


> There are several alternative strategies like to cache the failing
> test results for every build and use them for validations but the best
> strategy is simply to keep the amount of failing tests in the clean
> image on the zero level and force people to keep the system clean.

Yes!

> The
> original monkey hasn't exposed the list of ignored tests. So it was
> possible that some test was ignored because of a temporal network
> issue but for the second time it failed for o good reason and you even
> didn't know.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Pavel Krivanek
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are important..).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>>>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a missing method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing PR checks
>>>>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>>>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>>>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR fails
>>>>>>   even though it should not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full time job.. that
>>>>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>>>>> hope it will get better….)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>>>>
>>>>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>>>>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>>>>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>>>>
>>>>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>>>>> traits to local methods.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as soon
>>>> as there are errors even in the main image.
>>>>
>>>> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
>>>> Pharo6 fail.
>>>>
>>>> What needs to be done?
>>>>
>>>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>>>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>>>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>>>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>>>
>>> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
>>> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...
>>>
>>> -- Pavel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said: this is a full time job…
>>>>
>>>>         Marcus
>>>
>>
>