[users at bb.net] 0.9.0rc2 and build with no steps.

[Pierre Tardy]

In this case I would expect two things

If there are no connected workers for that build the build should stay
queued forever

If a worker is trying to connect with a spelling mistake on its name the
master should display a log saying that they is wrong authentication for
the worker and the worker should also constantly complain about a
authentication denied or something

Le jeu. 8 sept. 2016 21:52, Neil Gilmore <ngilmore at grammatech.com> a écrit :

> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> On 9/8/2016 2:34 PM, Pierre Tardy wrote:
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 8 sept. 2016 à 18:25, Neil Gilmore <ngilmore at grammatech.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply.
>>
> no problem, it is important for me to track all issues quickly as we are
> coming very near the release.
>
>
>>
>> I went over this again, and no steps was not the real problem. The real
>> problem was that we are creating a worker name that doesn't exist. The
>> other builders use the correct name, but this one doesn't. I don't recall
>> seeing any exceptions or logging related to this, but I suppose I wouldn't,
>> as the master doesn't know when it starts up who might connect to it.
>>
>
> What do you mean by worker  name that does not exist?
> Normally you cannot start the master if it has builder connected to
> non-existant worker.
>
> https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/blob/master/master/buildbot/config.py#L825
>
>>
>>
> I probably said that badly, or at least not clearly.
>
> There's no technical problem with master.cfg, and this is not an error in
> buildbot.
>
> What we have is a situation where there's no worker process that thinks it
> has a name that matches one in master.cfg.
>
> We have a host that runs a worker. That worker has a workername in its
> buildbot.tac.
>
> We have a master whose master.cfg has a matching entry in c['workers']
> that matches that name. We even have a builder that specifies that name,
> and it schedules and builds.
>
> But someone created a c['workers'] entry with a different name, even
> though they didn't intend for it to be a different name (the process is
> indirect in our master.cfg). The different name is used by a builder.
> Nothing happens because the master is really waiting for a worker by that
> name to connect, which will never happen. I imagine that if I DID start up
> a worker process with this different name, the master would start having it
> do the build.
>
>
> Neil Gilmore
> grammatech.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.buildbot.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20160908/ea0a207b/attachment.html>