Thanks Rodric, I'll have a look tomorrow.

/ Lars

On Tue, 28 May 2019, 20:25 Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com wrote:

> I created an issue for this test failure here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-apigateway/issues/342
>
> Which implicates this line:
> tenants.lua:130: attempt to compare nil with number
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-apigateway/blob/1f46de9d2f7a9420e48c533af7a4b1b6118aa130/scripts/lua/management/lib/tenants.lua#L129-L130
>
> Lars - maybe you can spot the issue from that? I suspect guarding against
> nil is sufficient.
>
> -r
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:44 PM Lars Andersson <
> lars.storfiskarn.anders...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If that PR is the cause, feel free to revert it as I have no time
> available
> > right now to have a look.
> >
> > / Lars
> >
> > On Tue, 28 May 2019, 19:35 Matt Hamann <matthew.ham...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like the failures began directly after the merging of PR #335.
> > Rodric
> > > and Lars were the contributors of that PR.
> > >
> > > I would elect to either revert the PR or ask one of the aforementioned
> to
> > > investigate the failure and submit a fix. The cause of the failure is
> not
> > > obvious from the build output.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > -Matt
> > > matthew.ham...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:03 PM David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >         It's been 20 days since the daily test run for apigateway has
> > > > actually succeeded.  Spot-checking a few of the runs, it seems like a
> > > > consistent failure of one test case:
> > > >
> > > > apigw.healthtests.ApiGwRestEndToEndTests > Wsk api should create an
> API
> > > and
> > > > successfully invoke that API FAILED
> > > >     org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: 502 was not equal
> to
> > > 200
> > > >
> > > >         Does anyone have any insight into why this test is now
> failing?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --dave
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to