Yes, spurious errors are, sadly, not uncommon with the ZEO tests. I
think we get a lot fewer now than we used to. Because the ZEO tests
actually start servers, they have lots of non-determinism. Further,
when there are failures, they are excruciating to debug. This is why
I'm working on a new ZEO implementation that will allow testing
without creating separate server processes.
Jim
On Jan 15, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Thomas and I fixed a ClientCache bug earlier and when running tests
(with --all as supposed) we noticed two different tests failing.
One of them was checkConcurrentUpdates2Storages (ZEO /
FileStorageConnectionTests) the other we can't remember because we
lost it in our terminals buffer.
Unfortunately we could not reproduce either test to fail again and
we could not determine any relevance of our changes by looking at
the failed code.
Does anybody else experience spurious errors currently?
Christian
--
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) -
germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
