pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: JSON PMDA with indom cache changes

To: David Smith <dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: JSON PMDA with indom cache changes
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <55709952.9070209@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <555DEF05.7030108@xxxxxxxxxx> <461406362.3814890.1432280874168.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <55677BB7.3060805@xxxxxxxxxx> <1432466455.9615965.1433146915880.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <2105731158.10292085.1433231032998.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <55709952.9070209@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: qMfuma7ErDSEtzQj3rFs4g8dCpANWg==
Thread-topic: JSON PMDA with indom cache changes
Hi David,

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> When you say things are "non-deterministic" do you mean that sometimes
> you see a pass? I certainly never saw this kind of behavior when I was
> testing.

I always see it fail the same way on the 2 hosts I've run it so far.  I say
"non-deterministic" because its produced different output for you when you
initially saved the golden output for the test.

I imagine its to do with different hashing schemes across the different
versions of python, and not a real problem in the new code.

> Hmm. Since we have fairly full control over commands here, we could do
> something like the following (untested) patch. Basically we sort the
> output of only the 'children json' dbpmda command
> 

*nod* - this is what Ken's suggesting too.

> 
> Note there are a couple of other places that would need the same treatment.
> 

Yeah, I think we'll need to go ahead & do this kind of thing.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>