FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-18-2010, 08:08 PM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Josh Kayse wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 02:35 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I just logged into the bodhi web interface and clicked on "my
> >updates". In the list I see a recent package I pushed to testing -
> >shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12. When I click on it, it takes me to a screen
> >for luckybackup-0.3.5-2.fc12. Something seems to have gone awry with
> >the hash generation or linking or something. I'd file a bug report but
> >I am not sure where the problem lies exactly. Any pointers?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jonathan
> Both packages have the same Update ID. You can access your update
> by going to
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12

It looks like today's push started overlapping IDs... I'm looking into
it, and will reassign ID's once it is fixed.

luke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-19-2010, 11:42 PM
Christian Krause
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

Hi Luke,

On 02/18/2010 10:08 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Josh Kayse wrote:
>> On 02/18/2010 02:35 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just logged into the bodhi web interface and clicked on "my
>>> updates". In the list I see a recent package I pushed to testing -
>>> shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12. When I click on it, it takes me to a screen
>>> for luckybackup-0.3.5-2.fc12. Something seems to have gone awry with
>>> the hash generation or linking or something. I'd file a bug report but
>>> I am not sure where the problem lies exactly. Any pointers?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jonathan
>> Both packages have the same Update ID. You can access your update
>> by going to
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12
>
> It looks like today's push started overlapping IDs... I'm looking into
> it, and will reassign ID's once it is fixed.

A couple of my updates suffer from the same problem. Is it still under
investigation and should I just wait or should I report the specific
problems?

Best regards,
Christian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-20-2010, 03:09 AM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 01:42:29AM +0100, Christian Krause wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> On 02/18/2010 10:08 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Josh Kayse wrote:
> >> On 02/18/2010 02:35 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I just logged into the bodhi web interface and clicked on "my
> >>> updates". In the list I see a recent package I pushed to testing -
> >>> shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12. When I click on it, it takes me to a screen
> >>> for luckybackup-0.3.5-2.fc12. Something seems to have gone awry with
> >>> the hash generation or linking or something. I'd file a bug report but
> >>> I am not sure where the problem lies exactly. Any pointers?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Jonathan
> >> Both packages have the same Update ID. You can access your update
> >> by going to
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12
> >
> > It looks like today's push started overlapping IDs... I'm looking into
> > it, and will reassign ID's once it is fixed.
>
> A couple of my updates suffer from the same problem. Is it still under
> investigation and should I just wait or should I report the specific
> problems?

A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
need to figure out a clever way to fix it.

If you want some details as to how this happened...

Bodhi's PackageUpdate.assign_id method is insane, mainly to hack around
SQLObject shortcomings. This method apparently relied on the
PackageUpdate.date_pushed field *not* getting updated when an update
goes from testing->stable in order to determine the last ID assigned.
I recently made a change that updates this timestamp when a testing
update hits stable, and thus broke the id assignment algorithm (sadly,
not the test suite (which is up to 101 unit tests, btw)).

I'm working on a script to fix all of these duplicates at once, as well
as an improved ID assignment algorithm.

luke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-20-2010, 03:40 AM
Tom Lane
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
> need to figure out a clever way to fix it.

Would it be prudent to not push new updates until you've fixed it?

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-21-2010, 07:36 PM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> > A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
> > need to figure out a clever way to fix it.
>
> Would it be prudent to not push new updates until you've fixed it?

The duplicate update ID issue should be fixed, and the code I wrote to
fix it is in bodhi/tools/fix_dupe_ids.py

luke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-22-2010, 01:29 AM
Jon Masters
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 15:36 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> > > A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
> > > need to figure out a clever way to fix it.
> >
> > Would it be prudent to not push new updates until you've fixed it?
>
> The duplicate update ID issue should be fixed, and the code I wrote to
> fix it is in bodhi/tools/fix_dupe_ids.py

OOI, what happened?

Jon.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 03:47 PM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi hash collision?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 09:29:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 15:36 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> > > > A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
> > > > need to figure out a clever way to fix it.
> > >
> > > Would it be prudent to not push new updates until you've fixed it?
> >
> > The duplicate update ID issue should be fixed, and the code I wrote to
> > fix it is in bodhi/tools/fix_dupe_ids.py
>
> OOI, what happened?

I described the issue earlier on in this thread, but basically...

Bodhi's PackageUpdate.assign_id method is a little crazy, mainly to hack
around SQLObject shortcomings (like not storing miliseconds in
datetime columns). This method apparently relied on the
PackageUpdate.date_pushed field *not* getting updated when an update
goes from testing->stable in order to determine the last ID assigned,
since we assign update ID's right when updates hit testing (which I am
thinking about changing in the next major release). I recently made a
subtle change that updates this date_pushed timestamp when a testing
update hits stable, and thus broke the id assignment algorithm. Sadly,
the test suite did not initially catch this issue, but I have since
added a test to reproduce the issue, and have written code to detect
these duplicates and re-assign their IDs.

luke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org