From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivered-To: chneukirchen@gmail.com Received: by 10.49.85.105 with SMTP id g9csp10604qez; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:32:28 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rack-devel+bncBCQJHHNTXUDBBD5SVCEAKGQEOV6QCRA@googlegroups.com designates 10.50.108.137 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.108.137 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rack-devel+bncBCQJHHNTXUDBBD5SVCEAKGQEOV6QCRA@googlegroups.com designates 10.50.108.137 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rack-devel+bncBCQJHHNTXUDBBD5SVCEAKGQEOV6QCRA@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com X-Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.108.137]) by 10.50.108.137 with SMTP id hk9mr345079igb.15.1359617548090 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:32:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:date:from:to :message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=qfx76VracKNBZGuNVzsqUERN8xI1ilZ1DwKZLwUc9m0=; b=b8ArN+zJtbnVCMRBp4/WehOy7Jqo6+KtiitjxwTzRjChG33guWoAP75gWbwYQ4+Ecm B6KvGPfUBXVXXLDqBsbIPVZIdZcyuVAKXJkubM6zMQO0osSETskNsL10OUA7nhingBiz smtZnaCCiXv0G5V7HnVnPtRDzNrwIrnHs3khsJr0nXGgzNtpcqlweMsNh8N9FBbvhTPY i3CgIz5r3ktPsTS0yVudKZJdkPTcBHphQC91ITxgRw4ROHYgJze080hnx3hBqXnv9PmJ 85ucLSjeQBtMZkHJhDwrBw60yIcxJgPj4tlL2SFcEVC7h5OydccWKbYF4Hx75E+LzOYJ EjYA== X-Received: by 10.50.108.137 with SMTP id hk9mr49716igb.15.1359616272123; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:11:12 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.153.195 with SMTP id vi3ls3348626igb.8.canary; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:11:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.159.65 with SMTP id k1mr5785116icx.10.1359616270929; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.192.167 with SMTP id hh7msigc; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:59:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.236.40 with SMTP id ur8mr49030igc.6.1359615546511; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:59:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:59:06 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Moore To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <5af3a6f5-d939-47c3-9ebd-7937e6ccae24@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <0693588c-1dac-4b09-bd4f-5441a6143d49@googlegroups.com> References: <0693588c-1dac-4b09-bd4f-5441a6143d49@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Running rack tests on Windows (both 1.9.3 and 2.0.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: timothy.m.moore@gmail.com Reply-To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list rack-devel@googlegroups.com; contact rack-devel+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 486215384060 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: rack-devel@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_385_16235238.1359615546031" ------=_Part_385_16235238.1359615546031 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Luis, I've submitted a pull request to rack that fixes a race condition when starting two servers simultaneously with the same pid file. https://github.com/rack/rack/pull/505 I don't have easy access to a Windows machine to make sure that the fix works correctly there. Would you be able to advise? Thanks, Tim Moore On Monday, November 12, 2012 12:20:55 AM UTC+11, Luis Lavena wrote: > > Hello, > > I've started to look into Rack (and its tests) on Windows just to ensure > things are running as much properly as possible. > > I found a few hardcoded values to temporary files (/tmp/rack_sendfile) > that is blocking spec_sendfile.rb from executing. > > Perhaps it will be good to use the system temporary directory instead? > > Beyond that, and without installing any particular handlers, rack tests > results in: > > ruby 1.9.3p327 (2012-11-10) [i386-mingw32] > 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 4 failures, 2 errors > > ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [i386-mingw32] > 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors > > ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [x64-mingw32] > 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors > > See gist for full details: > > https://gist.github.com/4054864 > > Do you think tests are incorrectly assuming details of the platform (test > is not prepared to run on Windows) or do you think the failures are > possible rack issues with Windows? > > How would you like to proceed? I wanted to get the conversation going > before invest more time on this. > > Thank you. > -- > Luis Lavena > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_385_16235238.1359615546031 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Luis,

I've submitted a pull request to rack that fixes a= race condition when starting two servers simultaneously with the same pid = file.

https://github.com/rack/rack/pull/505
<= div>
I don't have easy access to a Windows machine to make su= re that the fix works correctly there. Would you be able to advise?

Thanks,
Tim Moore

On Monday, November 12= , 2012 12:20:55 AM UTC+11, Luis Lavena wrote:
Hello,

I've started to look into Rack (an= d its tests) on Windows just to ensure things are running as much properly = as possible.

I found a few hardcoded values to tem= porary files (/tmp/rack_sendfile) that is blocking spec_sendfile.rb from ex= ecuting.

Perhaps it will be good to use the system= temporary directory instead?

Beyond that, and wit= hout installing any particular handlers, rack tests results in:
<= br>
ruby 1.9.3p327 (2012-11-10) [i386-mingw32]
583 = tests, 1761 assertions, 4 failures, 2 errors

<= div>ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [i386-mingw32]
583 tes= ts, 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors

ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [x64-mingw32]
583 tests= , 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors

See = gist for full details:


Do you think tests are incorrectly assuming d= etails of the platform (test is not prepared to run on Windows) or do you t= hink the failures are possible rack issues with Windows?

How would you like to proceed? I wanted to get the conversation goin= g before invest more time on this.

Thank you.
--
Luis Lavena

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_385_16235238.1359615546031--