> On June 25, 2014, 8:48 a.m., Pavel Moravec wrote:
> > All the automated test failures were due to a bug in 
> > cpp/src/tests/brokertest.py that allowed connection option "protocol" to be 
> > set to amqp1.0 even for native / 0-10 client. Below patch makes all tests 
> > passing:
> > 
> > Index: cpp/src/tests/brokertest.py
> > ===================================================================
> > --- cpp/src/tests/brokertest.py     (revision 1605024)
> > +++ cpp/src/tests/brokertest.py     (working copy)
> >  -344,9 +344,11 @@
> >          @param native if True force use of the native qpid.messaging client
> >          even if swig client is available.
> >          """
> > -        if self.test.protocol: kwargs.setdefault("protocol", 
> > self.test.protocol)
> >          if native: connection_class = qpid.messaging.Connection
> > -        else: connection_class = qm.Connection
> > +        else:
> > +          connection_class = qm.Connection
> > +          if (self.test.protocol and qm == qpid_messaging):
> > +            kwargs.setdefault("protocol", self.test.protocol)
> >          return connection_class.establish(self.host_port(), 
> > timeout=timeout, **kwargs)
> >  
> >      @property
> > 
> > Until there will be some feedback, I will commit both the patch above and 
> > the connection option handling within a day or two.

Good catch, my bad!


- Alan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/22864/#review46611
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 24, 2014, 1:01 p.m., Pavel Moravec wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/22864/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 24, 2014, 1:01 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Kenneth Giusti, Darryl Pierce, and 
> Rafael Schloming.
> 
> 
> Bugs: QPID-5836
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5836
> 
> 
> Repository: qpid
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> options need to be iterated to identify possible unknown options. Default 
> values (even None, otherwise Python complains it does not know them) have to 
> be set before the loop that overwrites the defaults.
> 
> This is in my eyes better option than adding an extra check like:
> 
> for key in options.keys():
>   if key not in ["reconnect", "transport", "port", .. ]:
>     raise error
> 
> As this check would have to be maintained and there is a risk one forgets to 
> add a new connection option there while handling it otherwise.
> 
> The code change is more than reasonable but several automated tests failed - 
> some of them (like ha_tests.RecoveryTests.test_queue_hold) due to connection 
> option protocol:amqp1.0. While that option should be present _only_ for swig 
> client that does not call endpoints.py and Connection class. Other test 
> failures are not directly related to that "missing" option but I guess it 
> would be the indirect reason (some connection supposed to provision something 
> failed due to that option, so the provisioning was missing etc.).
> 
> Any idea where & why _native_ client sets protocol:amqp1.0 ? (I even added 
> the possibility protocol:amqp0-10 but that didnt help, obviously). Automated 
> tests results added.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/qpid/python/qpid/messaging/endpoints.py 1604713 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/22864/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manual test with connection option {'a':'b'} raises error:
> 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "get_queue_arguments.py", line 17, in <module>
>     connection = Connection(brokerurl, **parms)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/qpid/messaging/endpoints.py", line 
> 195, in __init__
>     raise ConnectionError("Unknown connection option " + key + " with value " 
> + value)
> qpid.messaging.exceptions.ConnectionError: None(Unknown connection option a 
> with value b)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pavel Moravec
> 
>

Reply via email to