Re: 3.2.6 or not
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:54:27PM -0500, Jim Gallacher wrote: Graham Dumpleton wrote: To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands. As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for version out of SVN prior to packaging. Oh, so *that's* where you said we should disable the test. ;) I've disabled the publisher_cache test and the connection handler fix has been checked in. We are good to go for 3.2.7. As Graham suggests perhaps we could get some people to confirm the current version in SVN trunk prior to packaging. A couple of thumbs up from some FreeBSD'ers would be especially nice since the connection handler problem seemed to be most prevalent on that platform. If everything looks ok I'll create the 3.2.7 tarball sometime Friday. I've tested trunk (rev 374588): FreeBSD 4.9, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork), Python 2.4.2 FreeBSD 4.9, Apache 2.0.50 (prefork), Python 2.3.4 All tests passed successfully.
Re: 3.2.6 or not
Jim Gallacher writes: Graham Dumpleton wrote: To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands. As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for version out of SVN prior to packaging. Oh, so *that's* where you said we should disable the test. ;) I've disabled the publisher_cache test and the connection handler fix has been checked in. We are good to go for 3.2.7. As Graham suggests perhaps we could get some people to confirm the current version in SVN trunk prior to packaging. A couple of thumbs up from some FreeBSD'ers would be especially nice since the connection handler problem seemed to be most prevalent on that platform. If everything looks ok I'll create the 3.2.7 tarball sometime Friday. Just checked out the trunk... +1 trunk + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.3.5 + Debian/testing(etch)
Re: 3.2.6 or not
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 + Windows 2000 SP4 +1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 + Windows 2000 SP4 +1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 + Windows XP SP2 All three installers for win32 are available at http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python Regards, Nicolas 2006/2/3, Daniel J. Popowich [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jim Gallacher writes: Graham Dumpleton wrote: To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands. As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for version out of SVN prior to packaging. Oh, so *that's* where you said we should disable the test. ;) I've disabled the publisher_cache test and the connection handler fix has been checked in. We are good to go for 3.2.7. As Graham suggests perhaps we could get some people to confirm the current version in SVN trunk prior to packaging. A couple of thumbs up from some FreeBSD'ers would be especially nice since the connection handler problem seemed to be most prevalent on that platform. If everything looks ok I'll create the 3.2.7 tarball sometime Friday. Just checked out the trunk... +1 trunk + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.3.5 + Debian/testing(etch)
Re: 3.2.6 or not
Jim Gallacher wrote: +1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sid), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.3.5 +1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.3.5 +1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-prefork, Python 2.3.5 If I can get just one more test from FreeBSD 5 or 6, I'll produce the 3.2.7 tarball. +1 trunk rev 374709 FreeBSD 6.0 Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 This is a machine that always had trouble with that connectionhandler test before. Ran the entire unittest 5 times in a row with no trouble. Barry
Change to test_Session_Session_conf() of test/test.py.
Jim, Nicolas
Would it make sense to change test_Session_Session_conf() function in
unit tests to something like:
def test_Session_Session_conf(self):
import tempfile
tempdir = tempfile.gettempdir()
database = os.path.join(tempdir,mp_sess_test.dbm)
c = VirtualHost(*,
ServerName(test_Session_Session),
DocumentRoot(DOCUMENT_ROOT),
Directory(DOCUMENT_ROOT,
PythonOption('session_dbm %s' %
database),
SetHandler(mod_python),
PythonHandler(tests::Session_Session),
PythonDebug(On)))
return str(c)
Ie., explicitly set session_dbm to some other location than default.
Without this the test can fail if main Apache is run as different
account to what test is run as. I put database in /tmp under a
different
name, but might be better somewhere in the test directory of the source
code.
Does this make sense?
That gets rid of one of the failures, now for the others. :-)
Graham
