On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Johan Corveleyn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> 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?
I don't get it. When I look at the working copy from the failed test now, I can't see the problem: [[[ (with svn.exe being the 1.7.10 I built and ran the tests with, running the command exactly as logged by the testsuite) R:\test\subversion\tests\cmdline>svn.exe status -v -u svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del --config-dir R:\test\subversion\tests\cmdline\svn-test-work\local_tmp\config --password rayjandom --no-auth-cache --username jrandom ... MM + - 2 jrandom svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del\DF\D1\beta ... ]]] Perhaps the (timestamp?) issue is gone now, because I copied the svn-test-work to C: (as a backup, before rerunning the test), and now copied it back (R: is a ramdrive). I'm confused ... I suppose I can either continue to stare at this (and not deliver a signature), or just let it go (and sign, and consider this an unexplained non-reproducible local error that's probably not relevant ...). Anyway, it seems Mark just delivered the third Windows sig, so it doesn't matter too much. Lesson for the future: first try to investigate the failed stuff closely before moving files around. -- Johan
