On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Jeff Darcy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since the vast majority of our tests run without multiplexing, I'm going
to start running regular runs of all tests with multiplexing turned on.
You can see the patch here:
https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17145/
There are currently two tests that fail with multiplexing. Note that
these are all tests that passed as of when multiplexing was introduced.
I don't know about these specific tests, but most tests had passed with
multiplexing turned *many times* - sometimes literally over a hundred
because I did more runs that that during development. These are tests
that have been broken since then, because without regular tests the
people making changes could not have known how their changes interact
with multiplexing.
19:14:41
./tests/bugs/glusterd/bug-1367478-volume-start- validation-after-glusterd- restart.t
..
19:14:41 not ok 17 Got "0" instead of "1", LINENUM:37
19:14:41 FAILED COMMAND: 1 brick_up_status_1 patchy1 127.1.1.2
/d/backends/2/patchy12
This is one of the problem we are trying to address through https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17101 and this test was broken by https://review.gluster.org/16866 .
20:52:10 ./tests/features/trash.t ..
20:52:10 not ok 53 Got "2" instead of "1", LINENUM:221
20:52:10 FAILED COMMAND: 1 online_brick_count
20:52:10 ok 54, LINENUM:223
20:52:10 ok 55, LINENUM:226
20:52:10 not ok 56 Got "3" instead of "2", LINENUM:227
20:52:10 FAILED COMMAND: 2 online_brick_count
20:52:10 ok 57, LINENUM:228
20:52:10 ok 58, LINENUM:233
20:52:10 ok 59, LINENUM:236
20:52:10 ok 60, LINENUM:237
20:52:10 not ok 61 , LINENUM:238
20:52:10 FAILED COMMAND: [ -e /mnt/glusterfs/0/abc -a ! -e
/mnt/glusterfs/0/.trashcan ]
IMO, nothing specific to brick-mux. online_brick_count function has a flaw. It basically looks for pids for all the processes instead of looking for only the bricks. In this test one of the volume was replicate and hence shd was up and you'd see one additional pidfile placed. This was actually caught by Mohit while we were (and still are) working on patch 17101. The last failure needs to be looked at.
Do we have any volunteers to look into these? I looked at the first one
a bit and didn't find any obvious clues; I haven't looked at the second.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
