[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.7.10 up for signing/testing

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 01:37:27 +0200

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> The 1.7.10 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
> Please get the tarballs from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there. I plan to try and release on May
> 30th so please try and get your votes/signatures in place by May 28th.

I had one failure with serf: update_tests.py#45 (tree conflicts 2.1:
leaf edit, tree del on update). But I can't reproduce it during
subsequent runs (I made a copy of the svn-test-work directory after
the failure).

See the dav-fails.log file in attachment.

Some relevant portion:
[[[
=============================================================
Expected 'beta' and actual 'beta' in UNQUIET STATUS tree are different!
=============================================================
EXPECTED NODE TO BE:
=============================================================
 * Node name: beta
    Path:
svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del\DF\D1\beta
    Contents: None
    Properties: {}
    Attributes: {'status': 'MM', 'copied': '+', 'wc_rev': '-'}
    Children: None (node is probably a file)
=============================================================
ACTUAL NODE FOUND:
=============================================================
 * Node name: beta
    Path:
svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del\DF\D1\beta
    Contents: None
    Properties: {}
    Attributes: {'status': ' M', 'copied': '+', 'wc_rev': '-'}
    Children: None (node is probably a file)
]]]

I'm suspecting a timestamp / sleep issue, which gave me a "spurious
test failure". But I'm not sure (how can I verify this?). Is this
failure log consistent with such a problem?

If this proves to be a correct hypothesis, I can sign the release (I
reran the test 3 times without problems). If not, I'll have to dig a
bit deeper.

Could this mean some sleep_for_timestamp is missing in this test?

--
Johan

Received on 2013-05-30 01:38:23 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.