Bug 1375952 - Regression failure for test case: ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.t
Summary: Regression failure for test case: ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.t
Alias: None
Product: GlusterFS
Classification: Community
Component: tests
Version: 3.8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: bugs@gluster.org
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2016-09-14 10:27 UTC by Susant Kumar Palai
Modified: 2017-11-07 10:40 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2017-11-07 10:40:31 UTC
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Susant Kumar Palai 2016-09-14 10:27:39 UTC
Description of problem:
Encountered multiple regression failure for patch: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15464/1 for test case: ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.t.

Regression failure links:

Helpful logs:
 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:9:32: error: glusterfs/api/glfs.h: No such file or directory
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:10:40: error: glusterfs/api/glfs-handles.h: No such file or directory
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:16: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘*’ token
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c: In function ‘glfs_test_function’:
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:63: error: ‘glfs_t’ undeclared (first use in this function)
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:63: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:63: error: for each function it appears in.)
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:63: error: ‘fs’ undeclared (first use in this function)
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:64: error: ‘glfs_fd_t’ undeclared (first use in this function)
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.c:64: error: ‘glfd’ undeclared (first use in this function)
04:11:47 ./tests/basic/gfapi/../../include.rc: line 279: ././tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test: No such file or directory
04:11:56 ./tests/basic/gfapi/../../include.rc: line 279: ././tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test: No such file or directory
04:12:05 ./tests/basic/gfapi/../../include.rc: line 279: ././tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test: No such file or directory
04:12:07 tar: Removing leading `/' from member names
04:12:07 ./tests/basic/gfapi/gfapi-ssl-test.t .. 
04:12:07 1..19

Seems like the machine is not able to figure target path to build.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:

Comment 1 Nigel Babu 2016-09-14 11:16:43 UTC
According to bug 1368738, gfapi tests will fail on any release other than master. This means that the test files need to be backported as .sh rather than .t. See other examples in the folder. This has caused release-3.8 HEAD to be extremely unstable. Please take a look and fix as soon as you can.

Comment 2 rjoseph 2016-09-14 12:13:38 UTC
All gfapi tests are with .sh extension because of the problems in our test infra. And thus these tests are disabled. Poornima sent a patch (http://review.gluster.org/14748) to fix the test infrastructure problem. I guess this is not yet backported to 3.8. But I am wondering how the tests not failing all the time in 3.8.

I will backport that patch to 3.8 as well.

Comment 3 Nigel Babu 2016-09-14 12:38:40 UTC
It's a weird failure. Occasionally, some folks have brute-forced their way to get a +1. They're failing most of the time on 3.8. The only few passes are after a few tries.

Comment 4 rjoseph 2016-09-14 12:49:39 UTC
Backport of http://review.gluster.org/14748 Patch sent


Comment 5 Niels de Vos 2017-11-07 10:40:31 UTC
This bug is getting closed because the 3.8 version is marked End-Of-Life. There will be no further updates to this version. Please open a new bug against a version that still receives bugfixes if you are still facing this issue in a more current release.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.