Pure python3 for the AD DC for Samba 4.10 (5.0)
nopower at suse.com
Tue Aug 7 16:20:00 UTC 2018
On 07/08/18 04:15, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 11:21 +0100, Noel Power wrote:
>> While I can agree with alot of points here, however I don't think we
>> need to make hard decisions about if/when to cut off py2 just yet.
>> Lets keep our options open. I think the reality is that anyway in the
>> first instance we will have to have py2 and py3 working together in a
>> compatible way at the very least for a reasonable run in time while
>> getting py3 to work.
> Sure, I mean after it works, or at a point where we have a final set of
> patches and it makes sense to just do the switch than try and make
> everything py2/py3.
>>> We should push hard and finish this!
>> Oh I'm all for pushing to get this in as quickly as possible, my own
>> patches are getting stale really quickly with our fast moving master, I
>> am stuggling even to keep my py2-py3-WIP branch up to date (even just in
>> terms of rebasing). In fact I have failed to get a successful CI build
>> since my initial attempt to rebase to latest master post vacation.
> Can you please focus on getting parts of these up for review? I'm very
> happy to work on review, but I've not seen mails or merge requets in
Thanks for the continuing review help, it is *really* appreciated. You
are correct, I have not sent any new merge requests partly this is due
to being busy with some other tasks, mostly though it is the inability
to get a good CI build.
Now it is true that I could strip out some more changes and get them to
work under CI however previously when I have been doing this I have had
the confidence that the same changes (as part of the entire changes I
have) work within the sphere of all the PY3 enabled tests that I have
Taking a portion of changes in isolation an achieving a successful CI
run only proves the changes are harmless within the code exercised under
PY2 only. Normally I know these changes also are good with the extended
PY3 coverage in my WIP branch. I know that the 'fuller' PY3 coverage
isn't as visible (only within my
npower-py2-py3-wip,npower-py2-py3-wip-rebase branches) but I depend on
it for peace of mind :-) and it's the only thing that really says those
changes... yes they are good for py3 too.
Still I will work on getting together another set of patches for review,
this takes time though.
>> So even now my currently failing 'rebase' branch is quite out of date.
>> Not certain whether this is a resource issue or something to do with
>> environments getting polluted because of the extra py3 tests running.
>> The following tests have failed (and appear to be flapping) but
>> eventually after a number of retries passed.
> OK. Some of these are known to flap occasionally, I guess the more
> they are run the more this is likely to be an issue.
yes, I have seen some of these flap in others CI results too, however
normally with 1 or 2 retries I can get the build_samba job to complete
successfully (with other branches), this has not been the case for the
last couple of weeks with my py3 wip branches. This makes me really nervous.
>> my last attempt got as far as
>> [951(7400)/959 at 4h56m31s] samba.tests.samba_tool.demote(promoted_dc)
>> then failed (most of the errors with the above tests seem to have lots
>> of messages around connection failures and time)outs
> OK. Can you give me some more detail on this one? There are often
> connection failures around that test, because the other DCs are going
> down at this point.
attached is the ci log, I hope you can see something there.
>> With that job now taking ~310 minutes the turn around time is really
>> torturous, something odd is going on there, I am running out of ideas
>> about getting to the bottom of it. Of course running any of the
>> problematic tests in question manually pass no problem on my own machine.
> Yes, it really is hard. Splitting up the main 'samba' build would be
> worthwhile, but also a distraction.
> Let me know if I can help at all.
If we could get to the point of CI passing with some degree of
reliability that would be fantastic. But like I said it appears the
current unreliability seems to be with my branch (and especially post
> Andrew Bartlett
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 86547 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical