[SSSD] [PATCH] test_memory_cache: Wait short time after cache invalidation

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue Aug 11 11:41:40 UTC 2015


On (10/08/15 13:32), Michal Židek wrote:
>On 08/10/2015 12:26 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (10/08/15 10:41), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (07/08/15 21:19), Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>On 08/07/2015 06:16 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>+def wait_till_nss_responder_invalidate_cache():
>>>>>+    # 1 second (200 * 0.005) should be enough time for nss responder
>>>>>+    for _ in range(1, 200):
>>>>>+        if os.path.isfile(config.MCACHE_PATH + "/clear_mc_flag"):
>>>>>+            time.sleep(.005)
>>>>>+        else:
>>>>>+            return
>>>>>+
>>>>>+    assert False, "nss responder didn't invalidate memory cache within second"
>>>>
>>>>Grammar nazi nitpick :) : Missing "a" -> within a second
>>>>But the nitpick is not relevant due to the following:
>>>>
>>>>I would give it at least 5 seconds for 2 reasons:
>>>>a) if it ends sooner nothing happens, everything is fine
>>>>b) if it ends later (CI machine under heavy load
>>>>   makes even this possible) it breaks the test.
>>>>
>>>I realized it might be better to implement it directly in the utility
>>>sss_cache. I didn't increased time to 5 seconds because
>>>It would be a long time for users
>>>and they might to decide to cancel it (ctrl-c).
>>>
>>and now with patches
>>
>>LS
>>
>
>227
>228         ret = wait_till_nss_responder_invalidate_cache();
>229         if (ret != EOK) {
>230             ERROR("The fast memory caches was...
>231                   "responder.\n");
>232         }
>233     }
>
>We should not ignore the error here. If the function
>returns EAGAIN we should propagate EAGAIN to
>sss_memcache_clear_all() caller and let him call
>the sss_memcache_clear_all() again with limited
>number of tries. My proposal is shortening the
>max_wait to 500 000 with 10 retries).
>
It is a teoretical and very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
unlikely situation. It can happen even nowadays but nobody has complained yet.
It does worth to complicate code.

The only difference between curent versions of sssd and this patche is that
user will be informed about this teoretical and very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very situation.

I'm willing to change error message because could be printed to users in other
situation. Feel free to propose better one.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list