'tahoe mv' doesn't report errors from the DELETE operation #1255

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2010-11-10T01:32:36Z

davidsarah commented

2010-11-10 01:32:36 +00:00

While fixing #1253, I found another bug. source:src/allmydata/scripts/tahoe_mv.py@4811#L65 intends to check the status code from the DELETE operation, but actually checks the status code that is left in the status variable from the previous PUT operation. That would cause it to print 'OK' even though the DELETE has failed (in which case the source link might be left in place).

While fixing #1253, I found another bug. source:src/allmydata/scripts/tahoe_mv.py@4811#L65 intends to check the status code from the DELETE operation, but actually checks the status code that is left in the `status` variable from the previous PUT operation. That would cause it to print 'OK' even though the DELETE has failed (in which case the source link might be left in place).

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2010-11-10 01:32:36 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the 1.8.1 milestone 2010-11-10 01:32:36 +00:00

davidsarah commented

2010-11-10 01:37:28 +00:00

Attachment look-at-the-right-status-code.darcs.patch (16666 bytes) added

tahoe_mv.py: when checking success of the DELETE operation, look at the status code from DELETE rather than from the previous PUT. fixes #1255

**Attachment** look-at-the-right-status-code.darcs.patch (16666 bytes) added tahoe_mv.py: when checking success of the DELETE operation, look at the status code from DELETE rather than from the previous PUT. fixes #1255

look-at-the-right-status-code.darcs.patch

16 KiB

davidsarah commented

2010-11-10 04:16:43 +00:00

In order to test this, we need to arrange for the DELETE to fail, but for the preceding GET and PUT to succeed. Tricky. Can anyone see how to do that reliably?

zooko commented

2010-11-10 06:59:24 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

In order to test this, we need to arrange for the DELETE to fail, but for the preceding GET and PUT to succeed. Tricky. Can anyone see how to do that reliably?

How about put a fake do_http(). The fake one could check whether its first arg is "DELETE" and if so return a non-200 status code.

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1255#issuecomment-81088): > In order to test this, we need to arrange for the DELETE to fail, but for the preceding GET and PUT to succeed. Tricky. Can anyone see how to do that reliably? How about put a fake `do_http()`. The fake one could check whether its first arg is `"DELETE"` and if so return a non-200 status code.

davidsarah commented

2010-11-12 02:15:00 +00:00

Attachment test-1255.darcs.patch (19578 bytes) added

test_cli.py: test that 'tahoe mv' reports errors from the DELETE operation. refs #1255

**Attachment** test-1255.darcs.patch (19578 bytes) added test_cli.py: test that 'tahoe mv' reports errors from the DELETE operation. refs #1255

test-1255.darcs.patch

19 KiB

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2010-11-20 07:40:43 +00:00

In changeset:fdf69466699f0b2b:

test_cli.py: test that 'tahoe mv' reports errors from the DELETE operation. refs #1255

In changeset:fdf69466699f0b2b: ``` test_cli.py: test that 'tahoe mv' reports errors from the DELETE operation. refs #1255 ```

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2010-11-20 07:40:44 +00:00

In changeset:38a0d3f5fa5a4d60:

tahoe_mv.py: when checking success of the DELETE operation, look at the status code from DELETE rather than from the previous PUT. fixes #1255

In changeset:38a0d3f5fa5a4d60: ``` tahoe_mv.py: when checking success of the DELETE operation, look at the status code from DELETE rather than from the previous PUT. fixes #1255 ```

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2010-11-20 07:40:44 +00:00

tahoe-lafs closed this issue

2010-11-20 07:40:44 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.