On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:17 PM Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20-4-2020 18:07, kefu chai wrote: > > > Le lun. 20 avr. 2020 à 19:53, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >> >> On 20-4-2020 13:26, kefu chai wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:00 PM Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Kefu, >> >> >> >> This looks like a possible not correctly initialised difference? >> >> Am I correct in assuming that? >> >> >> >> Or suggestions to debug this? >> > i think you already found the PR addressing this issue and filed >> > https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/45130? >> > >> > anything i am missing? >> >> That PR was about the check-generated script not being able to set >> the return result in case of failure. Due to Bash creating a subshell >> for the while-loop, and thus putting counting variables in a different >> scope. Which you fixed in this PR. >> >> Once Fixed, I'm getting errors reported when running the script for testing >> RGWObjManifest >> and later on >> bluestore_bdev_label_t >> >> So for these 2 cases `dump_json` and `encode decode dump_json` give >> different results. >> I very much suspect that it could be that there is a difference bewween >> initializing an object >> and decoding an object in the way some fields are handled >> >> But I haven't found that (yet). > > > I see. Willem, can you see the same issue on master or octopus? > > > Hi Kefu, > > So fixing the bluestore_bdev_label_t error only requires backporting # 29968 > Fixing the error with RGWObjManifest is done in #29862, but requires quite some > more backports for all fields of RGWObjManifest and children to actually get it fixed. > > So I submitted a tracker to backport 29968 > Getting #29862 to patch in Nautilus will need quite some fixing, and thus require > a specific patch on Nautilus. And then still it'll require quite some more backports. > > So for "fixing" the RGWObjManifes, I'm currently running my FreeBSD tests with a patch > that fixes the testing loop like in #29862, but then excludes this test in Nautilus. > > If that is acceptable for a patch on Nautilus, I'll submit that. hi Willem, thanks for the investigations. nautilus is not EOL, so a patch is always acceptable i think. but "quite some fixing" and "quite some backports" are kind of worrying me, what do you mean by "quite some", are they involving tremendous work for preparing the fix only for addressing the test failure or they are indeed bug fixing which address issues we could be facing in production? > > --WjW > >> >> >> --WjW >> >> > >> >> Thanx, >> >> --WjW >> >> >> >> Start 94: check-generated.sh >> >> 1/2 Test #94: check-generated.sh ...............***Failed 58.52 sec >> >> Enivronment Variables Already Set >> >> checking ceph-dencoder generated test instances... >> >> numgen type >> >> ................................ >> >> 2 RGWOLHInfo >> >> 2 RGWObjManifest >> >> /tmp/typ-biXq5mHqd /tmp/typ-m55peHsmj differ: char 8124, line 278 >> >> **** RGWObjManifest test 1 dump_json check failed **** >> >> ceph-dencoder type RGWObjManifest select_test 1 dump_json > >> >> /tmp/typ-biXq5mHqd >> >> ceph-dencoder type RGWObjManifest select_test 1 encode decode dump_json >> >> > /tmp/typ-m55peHsmj >> >> 278c278 >> >> < "name": "", >> >> --- >> >>> "name": "0", >> >> 280c280 >> >> < "ns": "" >> >> --- >> >>> "ns": "shadow" >> >> 294c294 >> >> < "ofs": 0, >> >> --- >> >>> "ofs": 5242880, >> >> 314c314 >> >> < "name": "", >> >> --- >> >>> "name": "0", >> >> 316c316 >> >> < "ns": "" >> >> --- >> >>> "ns": "shadow" >> >> Start 112: unittest_journal >> >> 2/2 Test #112: unittest_journal ................. Passed 5.47 sec >> >> >> >> 50% tests passed, 1 tests failed out of 2 >> >> >> >> Total Test time (real) = 64.04 sec >> >> >> >> The following tests FAILED: >> >> 94 - check-generated.sh (Failed) >> >> Errors while running CTest >> >> Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failure >> > >> > >> > -- > Regards > Kefu Chai > > -- Regards Kefu Chai _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
