On 29 June 2017 at 23:41, miguel torroja <miguel.torroja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Luke Diamand <luke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 28 June 2017 at 14:14, miguel torroja <miguel.torroja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Thanks Luke, >>> >>> regarding the error in t9800 (not ok 18 - unresolvable host in P4PORT >>> should display error), for me it's very weird too as it doesn't seem >>> to be related to this particular change, as the patch changes are not >>> exercised with that test. >> >> I had a look at this. The problem is that the old code uses >> p4_read_pipe_lines() which calls sys.exit() if the subprocess fails. >> >> But the new code calls p4CmdList() which has does error handling by >> setting "p4ExitCode" to a non-zero value in the returned dictionary. >> >> I think if you just check for that case, the test will then pass > > Thank you for debugging this, I did as you suggested and it passed that test! > >>> >>> The test 21 in t9807 was precisely the new test added to test the >>> change (it was passing with local setup), the test log is truncated >>> before the output of test 21 in t9807 but I'm afraid I'm not very >>> familiar with Travis, so maybe I'm missing something. Is there a way >>> to have the full logs or they are always truncated after some number >>> of lines? >> >> For me, t9807 is working fine. >> >>> >>> I think you get an error with git diff --check because I added spaces >>> after a tab, but those spaces are intentional, the tabs are for the >>> "<<-EOF" and spaces are for the "p4 triggers" specificiation. >> >> OK. >> > > In the end, ,the reason t9807 was not passing was precisely the tabs > and spaces of the patch. the original patch had: > <tab><tab><spaces>....., as I explained, the tabs were supposed to be > ignored by "<<-EOF" and the spaces were supposed to be sent to stdin > of p4 triggers, but when the patch was applied to upstream the > <spaces> were substituted by tabs what led to a malformed "p4 > trigger" description. I just collapsed the description in one single > line and now it's passing >> >> Luke > > > I'm sending a new patch with the two changes I just mentioned. Looks good to me, Ack. Can we squash the two changes together? Luke
