At Fri, 2 Apr 2021 02:56:44 +0000, "iwata....@fujitsu.com" <iwata....@fujitsu.com> wrote in > Hi Alvaro san > > Thank you for your fix of trace log code. > > > From: 'alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org' <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:30 AM > ... > > It still didn't fix it! Drongo is now reporting a difference in the > > expected trace -- > > and the differences all seem to be message lengths. > > Now that is pretty mysterious, because the messages themselves are printed > > identically. Perl's output is pretty unhelpful, but I wrote them to a file > > and diffed > > manually; it's attached. > > Do ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse vary from test to test ...? > If so, it seemed difficult to make the trace logs available for regression > test. > I will also investigate the cause of this issue.
The redacted fields, F, L and R contained source file, souce line and source function respectively. It is reasonable guess that the difference comes from them but I'm not sure how they make a difference of 50 bytes in length... Anyway if the length is wrong, we should get an error after emitting the log line. > if (logCursor - 1 != length) > fprintf(conn->Pfdebug, > "mismatched message length: consumed %d, > expected %d\n", > logCursor - 1, length); So, the cheapest measure for regression test would be just making the length field, while regress is true... regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
