Bug 83230 – nrwt is failing to upload test results on the chromium-mac-leopard bots

• Component: New Bugs
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Dirk Pranke]

nrwt is failing to upload test results on the chromium-mac-leopard bots

[Dirk Pranke]

Created attachment 135706 [details]
Patch

[Ojan Vafai]

Comment on attachment 135706 [details]
Patch

Thanks for digging into this.

[Dirk Pranke]

Comment on attachment 135706 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 135706

Committed r113256: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/113256>

[Dirk Pranke]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[Dirk Pranke]

Reopening to attach new patch.

[Dirk Pranke]

Created attachment 135735 [details]
Patch

[Ojan Vafai]

Comment on attachment 135735 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=135735&action=review

> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/file_uploader.py:119
> +            if not self._debug:

This should presumably have a FIXME to get rid of this once we figure out what's going wrong.

[Dirk Pranke]

Committed r113271: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/113271>

[Dirk Pranke]

(In reply to comment #7)
> (From update of attachment 135735 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=135735&action=review
> 
> > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/file_uploader.py:119
> > +            if not self._debug:
> 
> This should presumably have a FIXME to get rid of this once we figure out what's going wrong.

True. Done.

[Dirk Pranke]

Okay, with the latest set of changes (incl. the typo fix in r113277 I *think* I've fixed the issues, and we've uploaded at least one run from the 10.5 Release bot. Will watch further to see what happens, and then do more diagnostics and clean up the patches tomorrow.

[Dirk Pranke]

The root problem appears to be the socket.setdefaulttimeout() call. From threads on the web (e.g., http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-list/328319/ ) it looks like this either doesn't work well with urllib, or with multiprocessing, or both. However, in 2.6 urllib2.open() grew a timeout parameter, so we should be able to just use that instead ... final patch coming momentarily.

[Dirk Pranke]

Created attachment 135925 [details]
Patch

[Ojan Vafai]

Comment on attachment 135925 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=135925&action=review

> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/file_uploader.py:111
> +            return urllib2.urlopen(request, timeout=(self._deadline - now))

I don't get this. Why aren't we just setting timeout=self._timeout_seconds?

[Dirk Pranke]

(In reply to comment #13)
> (From update of attachment 135925 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=135925&action=review
> 
> > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/file_uploader.py:111
> > +            return urllib2.urlopen(request, timeout=(self._deadline - now))
> 
> I don't get this. Why aren't we just setting timeout=self._timeout_seconds?

Because we might retry the transaction and should (in theory) use an increasingly shorter timeout on the retries.

Then again, I'm not convinced that we really need to retry the transaction at all ...

[Ojan Vafai]

(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (From update of attachment 135925 [details] [details])
> > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=135925&action=review
> > 
> > > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/file_uploader.py:111
> > > +            return urllib2.urlopen(request, timeout=(self._deadline - now))
> > 
> > I don't get this. Why aren't we just setting timeout=self._timeout_seconds?
> 
> Because we might retry the transaction and should (in theory) use an increasingly shorter timeout on the retries.

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. Why would we want to use a shorter timeout?

> Then again, I'm not convinced that we really need to retry the transaction at all ...

I agree actually. We certainly don't need to retry 3 times. 1 retry is more than enough.

[Dirk Pranke]

(In reply to comment #15)
> 
> This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. Why would we want to use a shorter timeout?
> 

Because otherwise you might exceed the the original deadline. If you want to wait for no longer than 120 seconds, then waiting for 120 seconds, failing after 10, retrying, and waiting for 120 again could exceed the original deadline.

I don't really care about any of this, though; this is all weird-error-case land, and we could certainly either pass 120 hear, or rip out networktransaction completely, or do something else ...

This code is also only used by json_results_generator and perftestsrunner (presumably also to upload something to appengine).

[Ojan Vafai]

(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > 
> > This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. Why would we want to use a shorter timeout?
> > 
> 
> Because otherwise you might exceed the the original deadline. If you want to wait for no longer than 120 seconds, then waiting for 120 seconds, failing after 10, retrying, and waiting for 120 again could exceed the original deadline.
> 
> I don't really care about any of this, though; this is all weird-error-case land, and we could certainly either pass 120 hear, or rip out networktransaction completely, or do something else ...
> 
> This code is also only used by json_results_generator and perftestsrunner (presumably also to upload something to appengine).

I see. I guess that's fine.

[Ojan Vafai]

Also, I'm *so* happy this is finally resolved.

[Dirk Pranke]

Committed r113399: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/113399>

[Dirk Pranke]

Re-opening, it looks like the last change doesn't actually work on 10.5 :(.

[Dirk Pranke]

Created attachment 136303 [details]
Patch

[Dirk Pranke]

Another fix landed in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/113617 ; let's see how this one goes ...

[Dirk Pranke]

Created attachment 136330 [details]
add tests

[Ojan Vafai]

Comment on attachment 136330 [details]
add tests

I think you meant to upload this to a different bug.

[Dirk Pranke]

(In reply to comment #24)
> (From update of attachment 136330 [details])
> I think you meant to upload this to a different bug.

You're right, stupid confused changelogs ...