Joe Orton wrote on Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:15:57 +0100:
> We've seen a few cases where the test suite for the ruby bindings fails
> spuriously. There are two (separate) issues:
>
> a) there is a race between svnserve failing in bind() because the chosen
> port is already in use, and the test suite checking that the forked
> svnserve process is still running.
>
> b) the set of ports used is not randomized so concurrent runs on the
> same machine will be fighting over the same ports
>
> Is something like the patch below ok? It does not guarantee success but
> makes failure less likely.
>
> (p.s. congrats to all for the 1.8.0 release ;)
>
> [[[
> * subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/util.rb
> (SvnTestUtil#setup_default_variables): Randomize port range used
> for svnserve.
> (Svnserve#setup_svnserve): Increase chance of catching an svnserve
> failure.
> ]]]
>
> Index: subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/util.rb
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/util.rb (revision 1494521)
> +++ subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/util.rb (working copy)
> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@
> @realm = "sample realm"
>
> @svnserve_host = "127.0.0.1"
> - @svnserve_ports = (64152..64282).collect{|x| x.to_s}
> + sport = (50000 + rand(100) * 100)
> + @svnserve_ports = (sport..sport + 99).collect{|x| x.to_s}
>
What about:
@svnserve_ports = (64152..64282).shuffle.collect{|x| x.to_s}
?
> @tmp_path = Dir.mktmpdir
> @wc_path = File.join(@tmp_path, "wc")
> @@ -286,6 +287,8 @@
> "--listen-port", port,
> "-d", "--foreground")
> }
> + # wait a while for svnserve to attempt a bind() and possibly fail
> + sleep(1)
No objections here.
> pid, status = Process.waitpid2(@svnserve_pid, Process::WNOHANG)
> if status and status.exited?
> if $DEBUG
Received on 2013-06-19 13:38:02 CEST