ref to codepad of modified test that clears the node cache

[Imported from Trac: page MeetingNotes_2012_10_23, version 5]
davidsarah 2012-10-24 00:30:54 +00:00
parent 03f68fc21c
commit 37467596b9

@ -31,11 +31,11 @@ davidsarah & amiller are running the tests independently to see the results.
amiller shares his terminal, and zooms on test_mutable.py, test_retrieve_surprise. amiller shares his terminal, and zooms on test_mutable.py, test_retrieve_surprise.
zooko suggests this test relies on the [ResponseCache](ResponseCache) which the patch has removed; but it's not clear that the test needs to rely on this cache. zooko suggests this test relies on the ResponseCache which the patch has removed; but it's not clear that the test needs to rely on this cache.
* 16:10 - More discussion of the specific test * 16:10 - More discussion of the specific test
david-sarah changes "self.old_map.best_recoverable_version()" to (something else) to see a different error and asks if that's the expected error for this test. david-sarah changes "self.old_map.best_recoverable_version()" to "n.get_best_readable_version()" to see a different error and asks if that's the expected error for this test.
zooko suggests the current test has four steps: zooko suggests the current test has four steps:
# overwrite file # overwrite file
@ -62,9 +62,9 @@ Others should plan to connect with hangouts and projectors.
zooko suggests a follow-on to ticket 1240 is to review the cache involved in this patch to ensure that it is actually getting hit and justified. zooko suggests a follow-on to ticket 1240 is to review the cache involved in this patch to ensure that it is actually getting hit and justified.
davidsarah modified the test to explicitly clear the node cache, which is what zooko suggested, but the test still does not work and generates the same error. The old contents are still present which was not expected, so maybe there is yet another cache. davidsarah modified the test to explicitly clear the node cache (<http://codepad.org/LIj7CF0t>), which is what zooko suggested, but the test still does not work and generates the same error. The old contents are still present which was not expected, so maybe there is yet another cache.
amiller suggests adding prints for object identities to debug the caching behavior further. amiller suggests adding prints for object identities to debug the caching behavior further. (This is included in <http://codepad.org/LIj7CF0t>)
* 16:25 - Zooko discusses topics for next meeting. * 16:25 - Zooko discusses topics for next meeting.