On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Two buildfarm runs[1][2] from the last 90 days have failed in
> src/test/authentication, like this:
>
> t/001_password.pl ..
> Failed 3/8 subtests
> t/002_saslprep.pl .. ok 1815 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.89 cusr 0.26 csys = 1.15 CPU)
>
> Test Summary Report
> -------------------
> t/001_password.pl (Wstat: 13 Tests: 5 Failed: 0)
> Non-zero wait status: 13
> Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 8 tests but ran 5.
> Files=2, Tests=17, 3 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.00 sys + 1.67 cusr 0.50 csys = 2.21 CPU)
> Result: FAIL
>
> Compared to a good run, the other logs just end suddenly after the expected
> "FATAL: password authentication failed". "Wstat: 13" means the Perl process
> died to signal 13 (SIGPIPE). This test invokes psql in a way that fails
> authentication, and it writes "SELECT 1" to psql's stdin. The SIGPIPE happens
> if the psql process exits before that write.
Nice investigation. An interesting coincidence is that I have looked
yesterday at an off-list reported some folks have sent me which is
basically what you have here.
+ # Return EPIPE instead of killing the process with SIGPIPE. An affected
+ # test may still fail, but it's more likely to report useful facts.
+ $SIG{PIPE} = 'IGNORE';
With this portion changed I can indeed see something which is more helpful:
psql: FATAL: password authentication failed for user "saslpreptest1_role"
ack Broken pipe: write( 11, 'SELECT 1' ) at
/Library/Perl/5.18/IPC/Run/IO.pm line 558.
If SIGPIPE is ignored then test output just stops after generating the
FATAL message. Oops.
> The two src/test/authentication tests then fail, but nothing else fails.
> Let's ignore SIGPIPE in all TAP tests, which leaves some evidence in
> regress_log_001_password:
>
> ack Broken pipe: write( 13, 'SELECT 1' ) at /home/nm/sw/cpan/lib/perl5/IPC/Run/IO.pm line 549.
>
> To fix the actual failures, we can cease sending "SELECT 1"; it's enough to
> disconnect immediately. Patch attached.
Perhaps you could use an empty string instead? I feel a bit uneasy
about passing an undefined object to IPC::Run::run.
--
Michael