#435 closed defect (fixed)

automate testing of large files

Reported by: zooko Owned by: somebody
Priority: major Milestone: eventually
Component: code Version: 1.0.0
Keywords: test large Cc:
Launchpad Bug:

Description

Per #346 (increase share-size field to 8 bytes, remove 12GiB filesize limit), it appears that we've deployed some bugs in Tahoe v1.0 which only manifest when you try to upload a file larger than about 4 billion bytes.

This reminds us that we really want to have automated testing for these parts of the code. This ticket is to make a test which is automated in the sense that a human isn't required to do anything in order to perform the test and collect the results. There will be a separate ticket for the separate question of whether tests of large files should be automatically launched by e.g. a buildbot policy without human intervention.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed at 2008-06-02T20:27:30Z by zooko

See also #437 (automatically schedule tests of large files).

comment:2 Changed at 2008-06-04T01:18:07Z by zooko

  • Milestone changed from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1

comment:3 Changed at 2009-03-28T19:40:52Z by zooko

  • Milestone changed from 1.3.1 to eventually

Moving this out of the 1.3.1 Milestone.

comment:4 Changed at 2010-01-15T20:26:48Z by davidsarah

  • Keywords test large added

comment:5 follow-up: Changed at 2010-10-22T15:48:57Z by zooko

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

This was long ago fixed by 6c4019ec33e7a253 (see also 466014f66fbccff7, 8c37b8e3af2f4d1b).

(But see also #437 (automatically scheduled tests of large files).)

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed at 2010-10-22T23:42:38Z by davidsarah

Replying to zooko:

This was long ago fixed by 6c4019ec33e7a253 (see also 466014f66fbccff7, 8c37b8e3af2f4d1b).

Well, test_large_share is currently disabled. But yes, the test exists, and it passed last time I tested it on my machine (Windows), during the 1.8.0 release process.

Perhaps the test could detect platforms that are known to support sparse files, so that we can reenable it on those platforms? That would be a reasonable alternative to #437, I think.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.