[martin@v.loewis.de] > I suggest not to worry about this too much. I get the impression that > the bsddb3 test suite is quite harsh, and that it makes assumptions > (e.g. about how threads interleave) that hold only on the system of > the author of the test. It clearly shows timing-dependent behavior. The tests all passed on Win2K (once <wink>), so I checked it in. > It also seems that once a test failed in an unpredicted manner (e.g. by > not giving back a lock it holds), subsequent tests will fail. Easy to believe. > I have settled to wait for user cooperation, here: the "plain" bsddb > modus seems to work fine, the problems only occur if you use advanced > features like locking and transactions. If people stumble over it, > some may contribute patches for 2.3.1. > > Before someone complains about this attitude: ... Not me. It would be better if the tests were robust, but I realize it can be supernaturally difficult to achieve that (at PLabs we write and run tests for ZODB and ZEO too -- sporadic failures are a fact of life, and often due to the difficulty of writing controlled multi-threaded tests).
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4