Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

x/review/git-codereview: TestSyncRebase fails #10048

Closed
alexbrainman opened this issue Mar 2, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

x/review/git-codereview: TestSyncRebase fails #10048

alexbrainman opened this issue Mar 2, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@alexbrainman
Copy link
Member

TestSyncRebase fails on linux/386

--- FAIL: TestSyncRebase (0.34s)
        util_test.go:278: git-codereview sync
        util_test.go:278: git-codereview sync
        sync_test.go:90: CL hashes DID NOT change during sync after submit
FAIL
@rsc rsc added this to the Unplanned milestone Apr 10, 2015
@rsc rsc changed the title git-codereview: TestSyncRebase fails x/review/git-codereview: TestSyncRebase fails Apr 14, 2015
@rsc rsc modified the milestones: Unreleased, Unplanned Apr 14, 2015
@rsc rsc removed the repo-review label Apr 14, 2015
@osocurioso
Copy link
Contributor

Mailed http://golang.org/cl/9256. Test relied on timestamps generating different git hashes for the same content.

@gopherbot
Copy link

CL https://golang.org/cl/9256 mentions this issue.

@gopherbot
Copy link

CL https://golang.org/cl/9951 mentions this issue.

adg pushed a commit to golang/review that referenced this issue May 13, 2015
In order to guarantee different hashes on "client" and "server" we need to generate different
commit histories.

Fixes golang/go#10048.
Updates golang/go#9602.

Change-Id: I511f517639230d7aca74b3d2ce3bfa6a2c299a5c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/9951
Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org>
@golang golang locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 25, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants