[issue20720] test_create_server() of test_asyncio failure on "x86 Windows Server 2008 [SB] 3.x" buildbot

2014-03-13 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: The following change should fix this issue. changeset: 89480:56c346e9ae4d user:Victor Stinner date:Thu Mar 06 01:00:36 2014 +0100 files: Lib/asyncio/test_utils.py Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_events.py description: asyncio, Tulip issue 157

[issue20720] test_create_server() of test_asyncio failure on "x86 Windows Server 2008 [SB] 3.x" buildbot

2014-02-21 Thread Guido van Rossum
Guido van Rossum added the comment: Agreed. I suppose all tests currently using run_briefly() should be modified to use run_until() with a lambda and a timeout. The timeout must be (a) large enough to never fail on a buildbot, yet (b) small enough that when a test is actually failing we don't

[issue20720] test_create_server() of test_asyncio failure on "x86 Windows Server 2008 [SB] 3.x" buildbot

2014-02-21 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: > After all the test does use run_briefly(), which might as well be renamed > run_with_race_condition(). Oh, it means that the "Future/Task exception was never retrieved" is a just a consequence of the failed assertion. IMO the run_briefly() should be avoided

[issue20720] test_create_server() of test_asyncio failure on "x86 Windows Server 2008 [SB] 3.x" buildbot

2014-02-21 Thread Guido van Rossum
Guido van Rossum added the comment: I suspect it's just a race in the test. This happened to me recently too when I ran the tests on my Windows 7 laptop, and upon the second try it passed, so I just figured it was a race. After all the test does use run_briefly(), which might as well be rename

[issue20720] test_create_server() of test_asyncio failure on "x86 Windows Server 2008 [SB] 3.x" buildbot

2014-02-21 Thread STINNER Victor
New submission from STINNER Victor: It looks like the overlapped AcceptEx() operation was cancelled by something. But when the test_asyncio was replayed in verbose mode, the test passed. Is it possible that a local firewall or antivirus cancelled the operation? It would be surprising since the