EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive

Message: #07528

< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First

Re: [EP-tech] Failing unit test on RHEL 6

Hi Karl,
The relation URI isn't an 'actionable URL'to the EPrints website.
It should work anywhere; changes to their website shouldn't break this test.

At a quick glance, the format of the relation URI might not be quite right - the colon before the '/id/document/1' isn't something I remember in the URIs (but I've only looked at this from my phone - I'll have a better look when I'm at my PC!).

If you want to do a bit more digging, have a look for the relation methods in EPrints::DataObj (and children). That might show what the search should be...

Cheers,
John
From: eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk <eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk> on behalf of Karl Goetz via Eprints-tech <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sent: 11 October 2018 02:38:54
To: eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [EP-tech] Failing unit test on RHEL 6
 
Hi all,
After quite a bit of trial and error I’ve managed to get EPrints tests running on RHEL 6.10 (approximately as described on https://wiki.eprints.org/w/Unit_tests) . All tests are now passing, bar one which I can’t find a solution to.

Environment:
RHEL 6.10
Eprints 3.3.15


This issue has been mentioned before (See the history of Unit_tests page above, or http://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/eprints_tech/20860.html and http://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/eprints_tech/20996.html) but no solutions are offered to this specific issue.


Error looks like this:

/usr/share/eprints/tests/25_mysql.pl ............. ok   
/usr/share/eprints/tests/30_search.pl ............ 12/35 
#   Failed test 'compound type field query'
#   at /usr/share/eprints/tests/30_search.pl line 358.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 35.
/usr/share/eprints/tests/30_search.pl ............ Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/35 subtests 
(less 3 skipped subtests: 31 okay)
/usr/share/eprints/tests/31_simple_search.pl ..... ok  

[…]

Test Summary Report
-------------------
/usr/share/eprints/tests/30_search.pl          (Wstat: 256 Tests: 35 Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  29
  Non-zero exit status: 1
Files=41, Tests=2142, 37 wallclock secs ( 0.17 usr  0.17 sys + 30.32 cusr  3.65 csys = 34.31 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 1/41 test programs. 1/2142 subtests failed.


It comes from 30_search.pl, starting at line 347 and going to 359 ($sample_doc is defined on line 85). https://github.com/eprints/eprints/blob/3.3/tests/30_search.pl#L347

$searchexp = EPrints::Search->new(
session => $session,
dataset => $sample_doc->dataset,
satisfy_all => 0 );
$searchexp->add_field( $sample_doc->dataset->field( "relation" ), "http%3A//eprints.org/relation/islightboxThumbnailVersionOf:/id/document/1", "EX" );
#print STDERR $searchexp->get_conditions->sql( dataset => $sample_doc->dataset, session => $session );
$list = $searchexp->perform_search;
ok($list->count > 0, "compound type field query");


I’m guessing the searchexp has broken by the eprints website changing, or its a test that only works internally at eprints services (which results in $list-> count being zero and the test failing).

Before I either comment it out or invest more time in determining the cause (as time permits), is anyone able to offer an insight as to what might be causing this failure?

Thanks,

-- 
Karl Goetz,  Senior Library Officer (Library Systems)
University of Tasmania, Private Bag 25, Hobart 7001
Available Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday



University of Tasmania Electronic Communications Policy (December, 2014).
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.