At Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:40:09 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> At Fri, 2 Apr 2021 02:56:44 +0000, "iwata.aya@fujitsu.com" <iwata.aya@fujitsu.com> wrote in
> > Hi Alvaro san
> >
> > Thank you for your fix of trace log code.
> >
> > > From: 'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org' <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:30 AM
> > ...
> > > It still didn't fix it! Drongo is now reporting a difference in the expected trace --
> > > and the differences all seem to be message lengths.
> > > Now that is pretty mysterious, because the messages themselves are printed
> > > identically. Perl's output is pretty unhelpful, but I wrote them to a file and diffed
> > > manually; it's attached.
> >
> > Do ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse vary from test to test ...?
> > If so, it seemed difficult to make the trace logs available for regression test.
> > I will also investigate the cause of this issue.
>
> The redacted fields, F, L and R contained source file, souce line and
> source function respectively. It is reasonable guess that the
> difference comes from them but I'm not sure how they make a difference
> of 50 bytes in length...
>
> Anyway if the length is wrong, we should get an error after emitting
> the log line.
>
> > if (logCursor - 1 != length)
> > fprintf(conn->Pfdebug,
> > "mismatched message length: consumed %d, expected %d\n",
> > logCursor - 1, length);
>
> So, the cheapest measure for regression test would be just making the
So, the cheapest measure for regression test would be just *masking* the
> length field, while regress is true...
tired?
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
