perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Kaluža <jkal...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Current httpd24threading branch problems?
Date Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:43:49 GMT
On 05/14/2014 07:01 PM, Steve Hay wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 13:10, Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 02:07 PM, Steve Hay wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 May 2014 09:27, Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/13/2014 07:29 PM, Steve Hay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 April 2014 11:40, Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/17/2014 09:15 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17 April 2014 07:46, Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> could you please sum up what's the current state of httpd24threading
>>>>>>>> branch?
>>>>>>>> I think you're the only one currently who knows what has
to be done
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> we can release it somehow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've tried to read the mailing list to refresh my memory,
but I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> what has been fixed/done already during these 3 months.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's mostly been me and you working on it, actually!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've said before that I need to fix some Windows test failures
and
>>>>>>> then (assuming *nix doesn't have any outstanding of its own)
I'll be
>>>>>>> happy to merge this branch into trunk and we can get a release
going.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My current list of failures is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Test Summary Report
>>>>>>> -------------------
>>>>>>> t\compat\conn_rec.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
0)
>>>>>>> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>>>>>>>       Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 4 tests but ran 2.
>>>>>>> t\modperl\local_env.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>>       Failed test:  6
>>>>>>> t\modperl\merge.t                     (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed:
3)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
>>>>>>> t\modperl\merge2.t                    (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed:
3)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
>>>>>>> t\modperl\merge3.t                    (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed:
3)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgi.t                       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
5)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  1-5
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgi2.t                      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
5)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  1-5
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgipost.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
5)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  2-6
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgipost2.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
5)
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  2-6
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgiupload.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>> [with LWP only]
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  1-2
>>>>>>> t\modules\cgiupload2.t                (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>> [with LWP only]
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  1-2
>>>>>>> t\protocol\echo_block.t               (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  2-3
>>>>>>> t\protocol\echo_nonblock.t            (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>>>>>>>       Failed test:  2
>>>>>>> t\protocol\echo_timeout.t             (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
4)
>>>>>>> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  2-5
>>>>>>> t\protocol\pseudo_http.t              (Wstat: 0 Tests: 13 Failed:
9)
>>>>>>>      [new failure for 2.4.x]
>>>>>>>       Failed tests:  3-8, 11-13
>>>>>>> Files=252, Tests=2938, 848 wallclock secs ( 2.26 usr +  0.36
sys =
>>>>>>> 2.62
>>>>>>> CPU)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ones marked 'new failure for 2.4.x' fail with 2.4.x but not
with
>>>>>>> 2.2.x so they are particularly worrying for 2.4.x support, but
note
>>>>>>> also that *none* of the above tests fail with 2.2.x when using
trunk
>>>>>>> (or mod_perl-2.08), which is also quite worrying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the current state of play on *nix? Which tests, if any,
fail
>>>>>>> using:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had finally some time to do the tests. It's run on Fedora 20,
>>>>>> httpd-2.4.9 and httpd-2.2.23. See below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) httpd24threading + httpd-2.4.x
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t/compat/conn_rec.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 4 tests but ran 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^ This is expected problem for now. It's caused by renamed "remote_ip"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "remote_addr" in httpd-2.4. I was not able to put proper version
check
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> this test (probably my lack of Perl knowledge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi.t                       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  2, 5
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi2.t                      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  3
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost2.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  1
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload2.t                (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^ All these are caused by r1491887 -
>>>>>> /perl/modperl/trunk/t/modperl/local_env.t. Should we revert this
>>>>>> commit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) httpd24threading + httpd-2.2.x
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t/api/server_const.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  5-6
>>>>>> t/modperl/setupenv2.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 23 Failed:
7)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  17-23
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi.t                       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  2, 5
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi2.t                      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  3
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost2.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  1
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload2.t                (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CGI tests fails for the same reason as in the previous case. Other
>>>>>> tests
>>>>>> fail *also* for trunk + httpd-2.2.x (see below).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) trunk (or mod_perl-2.08) + httpd 2.2.x
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> trunk + httpd-2.2.23:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t/api/server_const.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  5-6
>>>>>> t/modperl/setupenv2.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 23 Failed:
7)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  17-23
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi.t                       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
2)
>>>>>>      Failed tests:  2, 5
>>>>>> t/modules/cgi2.t                      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  3
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgipost2.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  4
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  1
>>>>>> t/modules/cgiupload2.t                (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed:
1)
>>>>>>      Failed test:  2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same as httpd-2.2.23 + httpd24threading branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have failures in (1) that aren't in (2), or failures in
either
>>>>>>> that aren't in (3) then we need eyes on them to try to get them
fixed.
>>>>>>> Perhaps *nix people could focus on failures that are common between
>>>>>>> *nix and Windows, and I'll focus on Windows failures that aren't
seen
>>>>>>> on *nix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From the tests above it looks to me that tests failing for
>>>>>> httpd24threading
>>>>>> branch are not httpd-2.4.x related on Linux. The same tests failing
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> httpd-2.2.x and trunk fail also with httpd-2.4.x and httpd24therading
>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think from my point of view on Linux, it should be possible to
merge
>>>>>> httpd24threading branch with trunk without introducing any regression
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> would be visible on our test-suite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we can't fix things any time soon then perhaps we should take
a
>>>>>>> vote on whether to release as-is, with documentation updated
to note
>>>>>>> the currently known problems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not able to help with Windows specific bugs because of lack of
>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>> and time for that. But if we fix the bugs mentioned above, maybe
we
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> release some alpha mod_perl with initial httpd-2.4 support and see
what
>>>>>> happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no knowledge to evaluate how hard it will be to fix mod_perl
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> httpd-2.4 on Windows. If I remember well, even httpd-2.4.x itself
had
>>>>>> few
>>>>>> 2.4.x releases with some Windows related bugs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am keen to see a mod_perl-2.09 with httpd-2.4.x support, but
not if
>>>>>>> it's in a buggy state (especially on *nix) that will just generate
a
>>>>>>> ton of bug reports and disappointed users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the tests are passing and we don't have more people testing trunk,
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> will have to consider releasing something to get more testers and
more
>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have httpd24threading branch in current Fedora for some time and
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> are no bug reports yet. Some people within Red Hat are using mod_perl
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> httpd-2.4 too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for testing, and sorry I've taken so long to get back.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it looks like you're happy on Linux, except for one known failure
>>>>> (compat/conn_rec.t) and a bunch of failures caused by r1491887.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try testing with that change reverted and see what results I
>>>>> get. Presumably it will fix the same things that it fixes for you; I'm
>>>>> curious to see whether it also fixes anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside from that, we have two sets of failures on Windows only:
>>>>>
>>>>> - modperl/local_env.t & merge*.t failing with either httpd-2.2 or
2.4,
>>>>> but they work with trunk (on httpd-2.2, obviously)
>>>>>
>>>>> - protocol/echo_block.t, echo_nonblock.t, echo_timeout.t &
>>>>> pseudo_httpd.t failing with httpd-2.4 only
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked at all of these before and made little headway. I will
>>>>> look again while I play with reverting r1491887, but otherwise I fear
>>>>> we're going to have to release 2.0.9 with these known Windows failures
>>>>> so that it doesn't hold up an otherwise good Linux release any longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I will probably start merging httpd24threading back to trunk soon
>>>>> if there are no objections...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That sounds great :). From my point of view it's good plan. I would vote
>>>> for
>>>> releasing some alpha version so we could get some more testing like the
>>>> one
>>>> provided by Alexander earlier this week.
>>>>
>>>> For me the Linux version is working properly on Fedora, but on different
>>>> distributions and systems we could find out more bugs like that one, but
>>>> without anyone else testing httpd24threading branch it will be quite hard
>>>> to
>>>> move with httpd-2.4 support.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jan Kaluza
>>>>
>>>
>>> With r1491887 reverted I now have all tests passing when using
>>> httpd-2.2 (yay! that makes me much happier), and with httpd-2.4 I only
>>> have the expected failure plus one of the sets of Windows-specific
>>> failures (protocol/echo_block.t, echo_nonblock.t, echo_timeout.t &
>>> pseudo_httpd.t).
>>>
>>> That would be acceptable for release (I really wasn't happy with a new
>>> release breaking 2.2 support...) so I think we'll have to revert
>>> r1491887 for now, and then I'll get merging stuff back to trunk after
>>> looking at that remaining group of failures again.
>>>
>>
>> Great, will you do the reverting part too?
>>
>
> Yes, I've just done it (on the branch), including both of our test
> results to document why it has been necessary. This will get merged
> into trunk soon when I merge the rest of the branch back too.
>

Hi,

how does it look like with that merge? :) I could try to do it myself if 
you are brave enough to allow me to do that :).

Regards,
Jan Kaluza


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org


Mime
View raw message