At Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:40:09 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > 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
So, the cheapest measure for regression test would be just *masking* the > length field, while regress is true... tired? -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
