[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings  added the comment:

I can confirm that the behavior is fixed in ZFS on Linux.  My test case C 
program now prints "Everything is okay." when run on a ZFS partition on Linux, 
and test_touch_common from the current tree passes every time.  ZFS fixing this 
was the best possible outcome.

I'll go ahead and just close it now--why wait!  If somebody confirms that the 
test still fails on FreeBSD, please open a new issue.

Thanks for checking in, Irit!

--
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: pending -> closed

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Irit Katriel]

Irit Katriel  added the comment:

issue15745 has been fixed in the meantime (about 6 years ago).

If nobody objects I will close this as out of date. If there is still a problem 
with the test is will be reported for a current python version.

--
nosy: +iritkatriel
resolution:  -> out of date
status: open -> pending

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

Result:

Before: 1407219004 988716892
 After: 1407219004 0
Before = After 0
This is insane!

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

And was the time argument passed in to utimes() set to NULL?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

I'm no expert at all at GDB, but I will give it a go and if this is wrong I can 
try a lot more.

Breakpoint 1, posix_utime (self=0xf00918ed8, args=0xf014459f8, kwargs=0x0) at 
./Modules/posixmodule.c:4838
4838PyObject *times = NULL;
Current language:  auto; currently minimal
4839PyObject *ns = NULL;
4840int dir_fd = DEFAULT_DIR_FD;
4841int follow_symlinks = 1;
4843follow_symlinks, NULL};
4856memset(path, 0, sizeof(path));
4857path.function_name = utime;
4858memset(utime, 0, sizeof(utime_t));
4860path.allow_fd = 1;
4862if (!PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwargs,
4875if (times  (times != Py_None)  ns) {
4903else if (ns) {
4919utime.now = 1;
4927if (path_and_dir_fd_invalid(utime, path, dir_fd) ||
963 if (!path-narrow  !path-wide  (dir_fd != DEFAULT_DIR_FD)) {
4928dir_fd_and_fd_invalid(utime, dir_fd, path.fd) ||
974 if ((dir_fd != DEFAULT_DIR_FD)  (fd != -1)) {
4929fd_and_follow_symlinks_invalid(utime, path.fd, 
follow_symlinks))
986 if ((fd  0)  (!follow_symlinks)) {
4933if ((dir_fd != DEFAULT_DIR_FD)  (!follow_symlinks)) {
4974Py_BEGIN_ALLOW_THREADS
4977if ((!follow_symlinks)  (dir_fd == DEFAULT_DIR_FD))
4989if (path.fd != -1)
4994result = utime_default(utime, path.narrow);
4800UTIME_TO_TIMEVAL;
4801return utimes(path, time);
(gdb) print time
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0xf01191d20 time
(gdb) print path
$2 = {function_name = 0x58bb79 utime, argument_name = 0x0, nullable = 0, 
allow_fd = 1, wide = 0x0, narrow = 0xf0099c0d0 /tmp/test, fd = -1, length = 
9, object = 0xf01445f90,
  cleanup = 0xf0099c0a0}
4996Py_END_ALLOW_THREADS
4998if (result  0) {
5006Py_INCREF(Py_None);
787 if (path-cleanup) {
788 Py_CLEAR(path-cleanup);
5016}

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

The no debug info makes me think you're using a release build.  Please 
recompile making sure that -O0 and -g are both set.  By default the 
makefile has -O3 and -g, so normally you just change the -O3 to -O0, 
then make clean and make.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

I used configure with --with-pydebug, will look closer on it when I get to
the office

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

To confirm, my OPT-line is
OPT=-g -O0 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

Yup, you've got a debug build there.  I'm baffled by that gdb no debug info 
line then.

At line 4801 could you also 
print *utime
print tv

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

Larry: Result of that:
(gdb) print *utime
Structure has no component named operator*.
(gdb) print tv
No symbol tv in current context.

You can also catch me on IRC with the same nickname as here

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

I talked to puppet on IRC for a while and we figured out the following about 
his OS:

* He has utime() and utimes(), but no utimensat().
* utimes() can write with *microsecond* resolution.
* stat() reads the time with *nanosecond* resolution.  (He has 
HAVE_STAT_TV_NSEC defined.)
* utimes(path, NULL) sets the file to the current time with *second* 
resolution.  Which means if it happens within the same second as the previous 
update, it will set mtime to an earlier value.

Just to confirm, he ran this script:
--
import os
b = '/tmp/test2'
open(b,'a').close()
before = os.stat(b)
os.utime(b, None)
after = os.stat(b)
os.unlink(b)
print(before:, before.st_mtime_ns)
print( after:, after.st_mtime_ns)
print(before = after, before.st_mtime_ns = after.st_mtime_ns)
--

and it consistently prints before = after False.

*facepalm*

Since utimes supports microsecond resolution, we could in theory work around 
this problem by explicitly specifying the current time when using utimes().  If 
we did that, we might want to also see if this behavior affects futimes() and 
lutimes().

Functions in posixmodule are expected to be atomic, and this would mean two 
system calls instead of one--so maybe we should only use this workaround on 
platforms with the bug?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

And to further confirm, on my Linux machine with a ZFS partition:

* stat() returns nanosecond resolution.
* I have utimensat(), which supports nanosecond resolution.
* The test code correctly sets utime.now = 1, so it correctly calls 
utimensat() with a time pointer of NULL.

It still fails, but here the race is much closer:

before: 1407191476502407010
 after: 1407191476502090829
before = after False

If I run the test on a different filesystem (e.g. on /tmp which is ext4) the 
problem doesn't occur.

My guess: it's ZFS's fault in both cases, it's not using the highest-precision 
timer available.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Ezio Melotti]

Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:


--
nosy: +ezio.melotti

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

Attached is a simple C test case for the same behavior.  On my Linux machine 
this prints This is insane! on a ZFS partition and Everything is okay on an 
ext4 partition.

The test case won't work unmodified on FreeBSD.  Try commenting out the call to 
utimensat, and uncommenting the call to utimes.  I don't guarantee that's 
sufficient.

If nothing else, we can be certain it's not a Python bug.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file36262/c_test_case_for_issue_19838.c

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Jesús Cea Avión]

Changes by Jesús Cea Avión j...@jcea.es:


--
nosy: +jcea

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

@Antoine: We have investigated a bit here and it seems that ZFS just keeps a 
timestamp in seconds in the memory.


See function uberblock_update in uberblock.c
( 
http://people.freebsd.org/~gibbs/zfs_doxygenation/html/d3/d65/uberblock_8c_source.html
 - Row 57)
ub-ub_timestamp = gethrestime_sec();

--
nosy: +clearminds

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

After thinking and looking a bit on it, this patch isn't the best to put into 
the code what I can see.

If any of these things really break, because of something completely different 
- we won't notice it.

A more accurate solution is to maybe look on a different way to compare the 
timestamps that works on systems that just support seconds too?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Claudiu Popa]

Claudiu Popa added the comment:

I agree. The patch was merely a temporary solution to the real problem.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

#15745 is probably related to this issue

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

So me and @larstiq have been sitting with this during the sprint here and we 
have figured out some things but haven't had the time to put together a patch.

If you put two p.touch() before starting the testing, it will not fail on BSD.

What we have found out so far is that during file creation the resolution of 
the timestamp is higher then at the touch attempt when a file exists.

The main issue as we see it is that os.stat can return a timestamp with more 
granularity than os.utime can set.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

os.stat can return something more precise than nanosecond resolution?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Francis MB]

Francis MB added the comment:

 What we have found out so far is that during file creation the
 resolution of the timestamp is higher then at the touch attempt
 when a file exists.

Could it help to create 2 files (file 1, wait a bit, file 2) and then do the 
checks only with file 1?

--
nosy: +francismb

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

@Larry

The issue is the following:

In the test after the first p.touch
(Pdb) old_mtime
1407128672.4133856
(Pdb) old_mtime_ns
1407128672413385711

After second p.touch
(Pdb) st.st_mtime_ns
14071286890
(Pdb) st.st_mtime
1407128689.0

So the issue is that when utime is used it can't set the time with nanosecond, 
but just with second resolution.

@Francis - A quick fix that would work, but it is a bit dirty but it will work 
correctly is to just add two p.touch() before doing anything.

Not really the best solution but could work.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

So why can't you use the ns parameter for os.utime()?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

@Larry - the problem arrives after the second touch, which does os.utime(FILE, 
None) if the file exists.

The os.utime that is in the test-code doesn't really break anything, what 
breaks the test is the second touch.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

A cursory read of the source code suggests everybody is doing the right thing.  
Can you run this with a debug build of CPython, put a breakpoint in 
posix_utime, and check that when it's called for the second p.touch that it's 
correctly calling the underlying function to say set the time of this file to 
the current time?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Daniel Eriksson]

Daniel Eriksson added the comment:

@Larry - we did that yesterday and on the FreeBSD-machine the regular utimes 
was used and not utimensat.
utimensat is not available on FreeBSD 10 so it fall backs to regular utimes to 
be used in os.utime.
But when a file is created it is the file system that sets the utime, so it 
will have nanoseconds.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

This test also fails on Linux when using ZFS.

--
nosy: +larry

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

Sorry to have such an awful configuration, but this approach won't fix the 
problem for me.

I use a Linux encrypted home directory, which uses crazy loopback mount logic 
to create an on-the-fly decrypted representation of my home directory.  So my 
home directory is actually on an ecryptfs device:

% df -T
FilesystemType  Mounted on
...
home  zfs   /home
/home/larry/.Private  ecryptfs  /home/larry

Maybe we could ignore deltas below a certain race-condition threshold?  Perhaps 
a millisecond?  I think there are already tests like that.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou added the comment:

So, I'm not against the patch, but it would be nice to diagnose where exactly 
the issue comes from.

--
stage:  - patch review

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Larry Hastings]

Larry Hastings added the comment:

(By this approach I meant the approach employed in the first patch posted.  
Sorry for the ambiguity.)

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Claudiu.Popa]

Claudiu.Popa added the comment:

Since issue15745 hasn't been fixed yet, would be okay to skip these tests when 
the test suite runs from a ZFS container? Currently, these failures are a 
nuissance when running the test suite.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[koobs]

koobs added the comment:

I'd like to put the buildbot slave instances back onto ZFS for broader Disk/IO 
test coverage for Python and other projects as well as to gain some 
administrative disk utilisation flexibility.

These two issues have unfortunately precluded that, and there's much more value 
to projects with a reliably green buildbot than one that is red, ending up 
ignored, and hiding other issues or regressions in the meantime.

+1 on disabling these tests and leaving the issues open so someone can pick 
them up at a later date and have a ZFS environment in which to 
reproduce/resolve them in a custom builder

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Claudiu.Popa]

Claudiu.Popa added the comment:

Here's a patch that marks those tests as expected failures if the source 
checkout is inside a zfs container. It uses `df -t zfs`, it was the easiest way 
I could find to detect that we are running from a zfs container.

--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35553/issue19838.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Claudiu.Popa]

New submission from Claudiu.Popa:

Hi!

test_touch_common fails when using 8.3-STABLE FreeBSD 8.3-STABLE and Python 
3.4.0b1 (default:a0ec33efa743+, Nov 30 2013, 10:36:58). 

Here are the tracebacks:


==
FAIL: test_touch_common (test.test_pathlib.PathTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /tank/libs/cpython/Lib/test/test_pathlib.py, line 1402, in 
test_touch_common
self.assertGreaterEqual(st.st_mtime_ns, old_mtime_ns)
AssertionError: 13858006320 not greater than or equal to 
1385800632871814968

==
FAIL: test_touch_common (test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /tank/libs/cpython/Lib/test/test_pathlib.py, line 1402, in 
test_touch_common
self.assertGreaterEqual(st.st_mtime_ns, old_mtime_ns)
AssertionError: 13858006330 not greater than or equal to 
1385800633042814928

--
Ran 319 tests in 0.368s

FAILED (failures=2, skipped=85)
test test_pathlib failed
1 test failed:
test_pathlib

This issue seems to be related with issue15745.

--
components: Tests
messages: 204786
nosy: Claudiu.Popa
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with 
ZFS
type: behavior
versions: Python 3.4

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Ned Deily]

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org:


--
nosy: +pitrou

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou added the comment:

I don't really know what to do with this. I think you'll have to investigate a 
bit and find out exactly what happens during the test.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou added the comment:

As a data point, if not for ZFS, test_pathlib passes on FreeBSD 6.4:
http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20FreeBSD%206.4%203.x/builds/4261/steps/test/logs/stdio
and FreeBSD 7.2:
http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20FreeBSD%207.2%203.x/builds/4731/steps/test/logs/stdio

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[koobs]

koobs added the comment:

Is this similar/related to #15745?

I took both of my buildbots (koobs-freebsd9, koobs-freebsd10) off ZFS until it 
could be resolved

--
nosy: +koobs

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[koobs]

koobs added the comment:

Sorry Claudiu I missed the issue reference in your comment

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue19838] test.test_pathlib.PosixPathTest.test_touch_common fails on FreeBSD with ZFS

[Claudiu.Popa]

Claudiu.Popa added the comment:

I believe it's similar, both test_os and test_pathlib fails when executed from 
within a ZFS container. I checked, I did a fresh checkout of Python inside a 
normal directory and run the tests there, they ran without problems.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19838
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com