Menu
▾
▴
[ archivemail-Bugs-2043900 ] mtime tests fail with python 2.5
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-08-14 17:38:16
|
Bugs item #2043900, was opened at 2008-08-09 18:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by wrar You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=456910&aid=2043900&group_id=49630 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Andrey Rahmatullin (wrar) Assigned to: Nikolaus Schulz (nikosch) Summary: mtime tests fail with python 2.5 Initial Comment: ====================================================================== FAIL: mbox timestamps should not change after semi-archival ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "./test_archivemail.py", line 713, in testMixed self.assertEqual(self.mtime, new_mtime) AssertionError: 1218285951.9247789 != 1218285951.924777 ====================================================================== FAIL: mbox timestamps should not change after no archival ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "./test_archivemail.py", line 690, in testNew self.assertEqual(self.mtime, new_mtime) AssertionError: 1218285951.9328034 != 1218285951.932802 ====================================================================== FAIL: mbox timestamps should not change after archival ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "./test_archivemail.py", line 736, in testOld self.assertEqual(self.mtime, new_mtime) AssertionError: 1218285951.9367993 != 1218285951.936799 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Andrey Rahmatullin (wrar) Date: 2008-08-14 23:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=884799 Originator: YES I use Linux and XFS. I've asked about this problem some time ago and received some interesting answers. You can see the thread in Russian at http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/071387.html (especially http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/071492.html). Here are some ideas from that thread: 1. stat(2) uses nanoseconds, while utimes(2) uses milliseconds, so utimes(2) loses precision less than millisecond. 2. os.path.getmtime + os.utime sometimes loses 1ms. You can see the testcases at the provided links. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nikolaus Schulz (nikosch) Date: 2008-08-14 17:39 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1594781 Originator: NO That's interesting. I'm just learning about this; which operating system and which file system are you using? Does your system support the utimes(2) system call? I *think* Python should be able to restore the exact timestamp with utimes(2), if it is available, although the Python documentation nebulously warns that os.utime() might fail to set precise timestamps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=456910&aid=2043900&group_id=49630 |
