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

Re: Makefile.svn: a dumb question

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 18:03:30 +0000

Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 02 Jan 2020 17:44 +00:00:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:35 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 10:45:25 -0500:
> > > Regarding the one test failure I had (autoprop_tests.py 7 with
> > > [svn x bdb]), I've had two more since, both with bdb. These are
> > > intermittent database errors and occur in varying places. (All fsfs
> > > tests have passed every time.)
> >
> > Actually, all three backtraces so far are in sbox.build(), so something like
> > this might be useful:
>
> I'm a bit confused here. Yes, the Python backtraces show it coming from
> sbox.build but aren't these being instigated by the BDB errors/panics
> (which are reported as a E160029)?

sbox.build() calls svnadmin, which exits with E160029 (and, apparently,
SIGABRT), which becomes an uncaught Python exception, which triggers the
stack trace, which lists sbox.build().

The point is, the errors always happened during sbox.build(), never
during any other part of the test functions [the ones listed in
«test_list»], so you should be able to reproduce the errors much more
quickly by running the test suite with that patch. For example, you
could run the test suite with the older bdb, establish how many FAILs
you get per 2000 test functions, and then upgrade bdb and try again.

Makes sense?
Received on 2020-01-02 19:04:01 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.