Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
Hi Nikolaus, On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: But yes, it's a bug, and the fix is in fact trivial, it's just that my coding infrastructure was broken until today. Did you manage to write up a fix for this? If not I'll work on one. Thanks -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On 24.11.2013 21:35, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: I would like to point out that the severity of this bug is exaggerated IMO, because (apparently) the FTBFS seems to be tied to specific hardware - I could not reproduce it. FWIW, I also get about a 50% True/False rate running python2 -c 'import time; print time.time() == time.time()' and the package fails to build on the Ubuntu autobuilder as well [1]. But yes, it's a bug, and the fix is in fact trivial, it's just that my coding infrastructure was broken until today. Can you already say when you will release an update? [1] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/164355682/buildlog_ubuntu-trusty-i386.archivemail_0.9.0-1build1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz -- Andreas Moog, Berliner Str. 29, 36205 Sontra/Germany PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 74DE6624) PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:26:39PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 03/10/13 at 19:40 +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: Actually uploading a fixed package will have to wait until I return from holidays, though, so it won't happen before 20th October. Hi Nikolaus, Ping? Grmbl. Thanks for the reminder. :) Had little time, and had to fix some nasty misconfiguration on my system before I could attack this. That seems to be resolved now, so this issue comes next. I would like to point out that the severity of this bug is exaggerated IMO, because (apparently) the FTBFS seems to be tied to specific hardware - I could not reproduce it. But yes, it's a bug, and the fix is in fact trivial, it's just that my coding infrastructure was broken until today. Thanks, Nikolaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On 03/10/13 at 19:40 +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: Actually uploading a fixed package will have to wait until I return from holidays, though, so it won't happen before 20th October. Hi Nikolaus, Ping? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:14:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are questionable, but still, the test should not fail. Yes, I just reproduced it again. It doesn't seem to be a 100% failure rate, though, but it does fail for me most times I try to do the build. This is really weird. Because what the test code there does is something like this: s = 24 * 60 * 60 time_msg = time.time() - s time_now = time.time() assert time_message + s time_now So if this fails, time_msg == time_now. But the resolution of the clock should be good enough to prevent that from happening. What do you get on your system if you run $ python2 -c 'import time; print time.time() == time.time()' If that should happen to print False, it would be cool if you could apply the attached patch and run ./test_archivemail once more. You can do this in the unpacked source bypassing all the packaging wrappers, they make no difference. Thanks for testing! Nikolaus P.S. I'm leaving tomorrow and will be traveling for two weeks. Probably means I won't fix this before I return. diff --git a/archivemail b/archivemail index 26b9aca..b958203 100755 --- a/archivemail +++ b/archivemail @@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ def is_older_than_time(time_message, max_time): return False -def is_older_than_days(time_message, max_days): +def is_older_than_days(time_message, max_days, debugtime=False): Return true if a message is older than the specified number of days, false otherwise. @@ -1046,6 +1046,10 @@ def is_older_than_days(time_message, max_days): secs_old_max = (max_days * 24 * 60 * 60) days_old = (time_now - time_message) / 24 / 60 / 60 vprint(message is %.2f days old % days_old) +if debugtime: +print time_message=%.8f time_now=%.8f secs_old_max=%.8f old=%s % \ +(time_message, time_now, secs_old_max, + time_message + secs_old_max time_now) if ((time_message + secs_old_max) time_now): return True return False diff --git a/test_archivemail b/test_archivemail index 7bf700f..f609fc7 100755 --- a/test_archivemail +++ b/test_archivemail @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ class TestIsTooOld(unittest.TestCase): for minutes in range(0, 61): time_msg = time.time() - (25 * 60 * 60) + (minutes * 60) assert archivemail.is_older_than_days(time_message=time_msg, -max_days=1) +max_days=1, debugtime=(minutes == 60)) def testNotOld(self): with max_days=9, should be false for these dates 9 days
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Thursday, October 03, 2013 02:43:03 PM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:14:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are questionable, but still, the test should not fail. Yes, I just reproduced it again. It doesn't seem to be a 100% failure rate, though, but it does fail for me most times I try to do the build. This is really weird. Because what the test code there does is something like this: s = 24 * 60 * 60 time_msg = time.time() - s time_now = time.time() assert time_message + s time_now So if this fails, time_msg == time_now. But the resolution of the clock should be good enough to prevent that from happening. What do you get on your system if you run $ python2 -c 'import time; print time.time() == time.time()' If that should happen to print False, it would be cool if you could apply the attached patch and run ./test_archivemail once more. You can do this in the unpacked source bypassing all the packaging wrappers, they make no difference. I just tried running that python command line 10 times -- I got True 5 times and False 5 times. As for trying the test_archivemail patch, that will probably have to wait until this evening. -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:27:53AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: On Thursday, October 03, 2013 02:43:03 PM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: This is really weird. Because what the test code there does is something like this: s = 24 * 60 * 60 time_msg = time.time() - s time_now = time.time() assert time_message + s time_now So if this fails, time_msg == time_now. But the resolution of the clock should be good enough to prevent that from happening. What do you get on your system if you run $ python2 -c 'import time; print time.time() == time.time()' If that should happen to print False, it would be cool if you could apply the attached patch and run ./test_archivemail once more. You can do this in the unpacked source bypassing all the packaging wrappers, they make no difference. I just tried running that python command line 10 times -- I got True 5 times and False 5 times. As for trying the test_archivemail patch, that will probably have to wait until this evening. Wow, that outcome was unexpected. Your system clock is not precise enough to return strictly increasing wall clock times for quick successive calls to time.time(). And if two calls return the same time, this will indeed break the archivemail test suite. Testing my patch should not be necessary, thanks. It is just adding diagnostic output to debug this problem, and I think we have successfully identified the cause for this. Thanks for testing! Actually uploading a fixed package will have to wait until I return from holidays, though, so it won't happen before 20th October. Nikolaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 07:48:59AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: From my pbuilder build log: ... debian/rules build dh --with=python2 build dh_testdir dh_auto_configure debian/rules override_dh_auto_build [...] ./test_archivemail F.. == FAIL: testJustOld (__main__.TestIsTooOld) with max_days=1, should be true for these dates = 1 day -- Traceback (most recent call last): File ./test_archivemail, line 521, in testJustOld max_days=1) AssertionError Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are questionable, but still, the test should not fail. What do you get when you run $ python2 -c 'import time; print repr(time.time())' on the system in question? Nikolaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are questionable, but still, the test should not fail. Yes, I just reproduced it again. It doesn't seem to be a 100% failure rate, though, but it does fail for me most times I try to do the build. What do you get when you run $ python2 -c 'import time; print repr(time.time())' on the system in question? In the pbuilder chroot, I got 1380680046.790368 -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure
Source: archivemail Version: 0.9.0-1 Severity: serious From my pbuilder build log: ... debian/rules build dh --with=python2 build dh_testdir dh_auto_configure debian/rules override_dh_auto_build make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/archivemail-0.9.0' mv archivemail.1 archivemail.1.orig xsltproc db2man.xsl archivemail.xml Note: Writing archivemail.1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/archivemail-0.9.0' debian/rules override_dh_auto_test make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/archivemail-0.9.0' ./test_archivemail F.. == FAIL: testJustOld (__main__.TestIsTooOld) with max_days=1, should be true for these dates = 1 day -- Traceback (most recent call last): File ./test_archivemail, line 521, in testJustOld max_days=1) AssertionError -- Ran 99 tests in 2.169s FAILED (failures=1) make[1]: *** [override_dh_auto_test] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/archivemail-0.9.0' make: *** [build] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
