On Friday June 17 2011 23:28:53 Anders Logg wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:37:29PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Thursday June 16 2011 14:15:46 Anders Logg wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:02PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > On 16/06/11 21:44, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > Do you have a self cleaning /tmp directory ;) ? > > > > > > > > > > Could you try run it again, maybe after an instant-clean? > > > > > > > > I've done that a bunch of times. > > > > > > > > > We need a better way of reporting this kindoff errors. As the > > > > > output on a buildbot is not reachable either. For now I have > > > > > bugged Johannes to log into the buildbot and report the messages. > > > > > Maybe we can make instant print the content of the config.log on > > > > > error? > > > > > > > > It's usually *very* long since there are lots of SWIG-related > > > > warnings. > > > > > > Would it help if Instant in addition to storing the output to a file > > > with a long "random" name which is difficult to access also stored it > > > in a file with a predictable name, like "instant_error.log" in the > > > current directory, or in ~/.instant? Perhaps one can then link to that > > > file from the buildbot. > > > > Instant now copies any config.log to > > .instant/error/modulename/config.log. It would be cool if the file could > > be grabbed by the buldbot and displayed in the errorlog when something > > goes wrong. > > > > Not sure the name is predictive enough for the buildbot as modulename > > dependes on a hashsum... > > Can't we choose a common name that does not depend on the module name?
Yeah, I first thought of this. But went with including the module as the path is printed to the user. Couldn't a smart server script grab the content of the latest folder added under .instant/error? > It might fail if two processes try to write at the same time, but only > if those processes *fail* at the same time. That's unlikely and if it > already fails, perhaps it's not a problem that on very rare occasions > the copying of the logfile fails. Not sure this will be a problem. Isn't the "only" thing that might happen is that one file gets overwritten by the other? But I still think including the hashed module name is cleaner. Johan > -- > Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
