Good one, that describes my experience syncing, multiple runs needed to push through errors. My versions:
django-peeringdb: 0.2.2 peeringdb: 0.5.0 Here’s how it fails on a fresh sync: https://www.peeringdb.com:443 "GET /api/net?since=0 HTTP/1.1" 200 None net last update 0 8933 changed data to be processed 8933 Traceback (most recent call last): File "/bin/peeringdb", line 11, in <module> sys.exit(cli()) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/click/core.py", line 722, in __call__ return self.main(*args, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/click/core.py", line 697, in main rv = self.invoke(ctx) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/click/core.py", line 1066, in invoke return _process_result(sub_ctx.command.invoke(sub_ctx)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/click/core.py", line 895, in invoke return ctx.invoke(self.callback, **ctx.params) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/click/core.py", line 535, in invoke return callback(*args, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/peeringdb/cli.py", line 167, in sync db.sync() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/peeringdb/localdb.py", line 141, in sync call_command('pdb_sync', interactive=False) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 120, in call_command return command.execute(*args, **defaults) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line 445, in execute output = self.handle(*args, **options) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_peeringdb/management/commands/pdb_sync.py", line 85, in handle self.sync(tables) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_peeringdb/management/commands/pdb_sync.py", line 92, in sync self.update_db(cls, self.get_objs(cls)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_peeringdb/management/commands/pdb_sync.py", line 127, in update_db sync.sync_obj(cls, row) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_peeringdb/sync.py", line 25, in sync_obj obj.full_clean() File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/base.py", line 1171, in full_clean raise ValidationError(errors) django.core.exceptions.ValidationError: {'info_traffic': [u"Value u'10 Tbps+' is not a valid choice.”]} So, next try to upgrade django-peeringdb. Here’s how that fails: $ pip install django-peeringdb --upgrade Collecting django-peeringdb Using cached django-peeringdb-0.3.1.tar.gz Collecting django_countries>=0.1.0 (from django-peeringdb) Using cached django_countries-4.2-py2.py3-none-any.whl Collecting django_handleref<0.2.0,>=0.1.4 (from django-peeringdb) Using cached django-handleref-0.1.5.tar.gz Collecting django_inet<0.4,>=0.3.2 (from django-peeringdb) Using cached django-inet-0.3.2.tar.gz Complete output from command python setup.py egg_info: /usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py:267: UserWarning: Unknown distribution option: 'test_requires' warnings.warn(msg) error in django-inet setup command: 'install_requires' must be a string or list of strings containing valid project/version requirement specifiers ---------------------------------------- Command "python setup.py egg_info" failed with error code 1 in /tmp/pip-build-9Dm5Ax/django-inet/ Greg > On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Stefan Pratter <[email protected]> wrote: > > The one situation that comes to mind that would cause what you are describing > is if you are running an older version of django-peeringdb and it's failing > validation on some of the enum fields that had values added to them - e.g. > they are valid on the server, but not valid locally - which would affect a > lot of the entities that are missing for you. > > Furthermore it would notify you of that failure initially, but consecutive > runs of sync on that same database may appear to complete successfully > depending on which objects they touch. > > To be sure, i just ran a local sync on a fresh database and on an existing > one and it behaves normally for me in both cases. > > Tested with these versions: > > django-peeringdb==0.3.1 > peeringdb==0.5.0 > > What is the output when you run peeringdb sync on a fresh database? > > Stefan > > On 23/03/2017 23.58, Greg Dendy wrote: >> Hola PDB-Tech >> >> I’ve noticed that my peeringdb sql syncs over the last week or so are >> considerably smaller than normal, by about 75%. The sync process >> appears to complete successfully, but network, facility, and IX records >> appear to be missing. >> >> Anyone else seeing this behavior? >> >> Are there any known issues with the sync function that could cause this >> behavior? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pdb-tech mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech >> > _______________________________________________ > Pdb-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech _______________________________________________ Pdb-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
