On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:50 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:55 AM Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > No. Don't worry with translations during the development. Make sure to follow
> > the instructions provided here [1]. Translations are coordinated in a different
> > mailing list: pgsql-translators [2]. There is a different repository [3] for
> > handling PO files and the updated files are merged by Peter Eisentraut just
> > before each minor/major release. We usually start to update translations after
> > feature freeze.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 12:49 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, I have attached a v5 patch with the
> > changes where the translation should not have any problem.
> >
>
> I have taken a further look at the V5 patch:
>
> 1. We wait 10sec until the syslogger process logs the expected message, what happens if someone intentionally made
thesyslogger process to wait for a longer duration? Will the new tests fail?
> # might need to retry if logging collector process is slow...
> my $max_attempts = 10 * 10;
> my $first_logfile;
> for (my $attempts = 0; $attempts < $max_attempts; $attempts++)
> {
> $first_logfile = slurp_file($node->data_dir . '/' . $lfname);
> last if $first_logfile =~ m/$expect_log_msg /;
> usleep(100_000);
> }
>
Yes the test will fail if it takes more than the max_attempts as there
is a like statement immediately after the loop:
like($first_logfile, qr/\Q$expect_log_msg\E/,
'found expected log file content');
I have also increased the attempts to 180 seconds just like other
tests to avoid failure in very slow systems.
> 2. I intentionally altered(for testing purpose only) the expected log message input given to test_access(), expecting
thetests to fail, but the test succeeded. Am I missing something here? Is it that the syslogger process not logging the
messageat all or within the 10sec waiting? Do we need to increase the wait duration? Do we need to do something to fail
thetest when we don't see the expected log message in test_access()?
>
> "cXNnnection authorized: user=......
> "connecTEion authorized: user=....
> "connection auTThorized:.....
>
Thanks for testing this, I had missed testing this. The expression
matching was not correct. Attached v6 patch which includes the fix for
this.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
