pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp QA status

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp QA status
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <683173640.795045.1466575709412.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5767A046.3030207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <683173640.795045.1466575709412.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: NGapQ6sEZidwTIQcOKBSKwLYxvlAxtgGqzap
Thread-topic: pcp QA status
Hi guys,

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > [...]
> > I think I've dealt with most of the VM environmental failures now, so these
> > are probably real failures.
> > [...]
> 
> > 651 ditto
> 
> The only clue I have here so far is that 651 only fails for me with a non-
> secure-sockets enabled build.  Still investigating though.
> 

Somehow, this is fallout from commit 1b74b0f5e2bc - pmproxy connections working
fine for secure sockets but failing for builds with regular sockets.  Can I get
you to dig deeper please Dave?  You'll spot it much quicker than I will, and I
guess the multiple connection attempts confuse pmproxy somehow.  Noticed in the
pmproxy.log there's plenty of "Bad version string" messages (i.e. no data ended
up sent on a connection), which might be another clue.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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