[spambayes-dev] A new and altogether different bsddb breakage

[Kenny Pitt]

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Kenny Pitt]
>> ...
>> Unfortunately, the line that always fails
>> is that very first and most basic initialization call, the same one
>> that we would need to call for any use in SpamBayes.
> 
> I don't think there's a problem with that:
> 
> ...
> 
> Note that the 4 Env instances of test02_cursors pass.  They're doing
> the full-blown open-with-env bit too.  It's the the 4 Env instances of
> test01_basics that fail, and all of them die with the same traceback:
> 
> ...
> 
> So there's something screwed up about how the
> test tries to close and reopen the dbshelve (self.d) on this box. 
> Figuring out exactly what would require digging into the guts of the
> stinkin' dbshelve module, to see how *its* stinkin' close method
> screws up <wink>. 

I suspect some timing issue with the Windows disk cache not immediately
flushing stuff to disk.  That's just idle speculation, of course, but I
have seen similar things in other development projects.

> If I comment out lines 74 and 75 (the back-to-back close()/open()
> pair), the 4 env instances of test01_basics all pass.
>
> ...
> 
> The only way they don't pass is to do exactly what the test does
> <wink>. 
> 
>> ...
>> Maybe the best thing is to throw some test code into SpamBayes
>> and see if it will even start up on Win98.
> 
> Yes.

Good to know, thanks.  I'll proceed along that line, then.  I can't
think of a good reason that we should need to close and then immediately
reopen the same database.

-- 
Kenny Pitt