Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
This is now fixed, right? Personal experience as well as buildbot behaviour
seems to show that parallel test execution (either through -j, or by running
several test suites at the same time) works ok.
--
nosy: +exarkun, pitrou
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
--
stage: - test needed
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 3.0
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2550
___
Changes by Forest Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +forest
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2550
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Changes by Alan Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +amak
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2550
__
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Invested quite a few cycles on this issue last night. The more time I
spent on it, the more I became convinced that every single test working
with sockets should be changed in one fell swoop in order to facilitate
(virtually unlimited)
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Committed updates to relevant network-oriented tests, as well as
test_support changes discussed, in r62234.
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2550
__
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I don't like that the patch changes the API of a function in
test_support() (in particular changing the return type; adding optional
arguments is not a problem). This could trip up 3rd party users of this
API. I recommend creating a new API
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
To be honest, I wasn't really happy either with having to return HOST,
it's somewhat redundant given that all these tests should be binding
against localhost. What about something like this for bind_port():
def bind_port(sock, host=''):
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Thanks, that's much better (though I'm not the authority on all details
of this patch).
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2550
__
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
[Updating the issue with relevant mailing list conversation]
Interesting results! I committed the patch to test_socket.py in
r62152. I was expecting all other platforms except for Windows to
behave consistently (i.e. pass). That is, given
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
[Updating issue with mailing list discussion; my reply to Jean-Paul]
With TCP, we are never able to start multiple servers that bind
the same IP address and same port: a completely duplicate binding.
That is, we cannot start one server that
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
[Updating issue with mailing list discussion; Jean-Paul's reply]
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:24:49 -0700, Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Interesting results! I committed the patch to test_socket.py in
r62152. I was expecting all other
Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I've attached another patch that fixes test_support.bind_port() as well
as a bunch of files that used that method. The new implementation
always uses an ephemeral port in order to elicit an unused port for
subsequent binding. Tested on
Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Trent, go ahead and try this out. We should definitely be moving in
this direction. So I'd rather fix the problem than keep suffering with
the current problems of not being able to run the test suite
concurrently. I think bind_port might be
New submission from Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Background: I came across this issue when trying to track down why
test_asynchat would periodically wedge python processes on the Windows
buildbots, to the point that they wouldn't even respond to SIGKILL (or
ctrl-c on the console).
What I
15 matches
Mail list logo
