MySQL Lists are EOL. Please join:

List:Commits« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Hema Sridharan Date:June 24 2008 4:54am
Subject:RE: WL#4222 Test patch review
View as plain text  
Hi Chuck,

Please find my new patch for the test of metadata consistency. I modified
the tests according to your review comments. I also executed these tests in
Windows machines today, seems to be working for me. Please see the link
below for the patch

Let me know if you are fine with the changes. 

> Hema, 
> I read your summary. I am fine with doing things in 
> increments. But I don't see any plans to do so. Under what WL 
> or BUG report are we tracking the conversion of existing 
> tests to the backup suite? I think there should be a WL 
> associated with that effort.
> > > 13) Once the patch issue was resolved, the result file 
> was different 
> > > but this was due to the patch problem. The same is true for the 
> > > other two tests.
> > > 
> > > 14) Once all those problems were solved, I got this. I surrender. 
> > > Please fix and resubmit a new patch.
> > > 
> > > backup.backup_objectts 'innodb' [ fail ]
> > > 
> > > mysqltest: At line 181: query 'RESTORE FROM 'bup_objectts.bak'' 
> > > failed: 7:
> > > Error
> > >  on rename of '.\bup_objectts\cap.TRG~' to 
> '.\bup_objectts\cap.TRG'
> > > (Errcode: 17
> > > )
> > 
> > 
> > Hema: Oops ! I didn't get this error when I run it in my 
> machine and 
> > thats why I committed the test. I don't know why it is 
> failing in your 
> > machine, please help me out to figure out the delta b/w these 2 
> > systems.Also this error is pertinent to "ALTER TABLE" 
> operation, which 
> > I haven't done in my test case. I don't know from where this error 
> > pops up?
> Line 181 in test backup_objectts while running with InnoDB 
> (see test output). I would suggest you run your tests on 
> Windows in several iterations. This is an intermittent 
> failure -- the worst case. If you run it on Windows and after 
> many attempts do not see the error then I will accept it is 
> isolated to my machine (it's happened before). But we need to be sure.
> I think I need to see another patch before I can approve this to push.
> Chuck

WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell12 Jun
  • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan13 Jun
    • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell13 Jun
      • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan24 Jun
        • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell30 Jun
          • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan1 Jul
            • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell1 Jul
              • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan2 Jul
                • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell2 Jul
                  • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan3 Jul
                    • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell21 Jul
                      • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan23 Jul
                        • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell23 Jul
                          • Re: WL#4222 Test patch reviewJoerg Bruehe31 Jul
                            • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan1 Aug
                              • Re: WL#4222 Test patch reviewJoerg Bruehe1 Aug
                      • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan7 Aug
                        • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell11 Aug
                          • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan11 Aug
RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewChuck Bell30 Jun
  • RE: WL#4222 Test patch reviewHema Sridharan30 Jun