depends: update the comparison tool to a more recent version #4837

1. 
   theuni commented at 9:06 pm on September 3, 2014: member

   Travis comparison tests sometimes disconnect from bitcoind for some non-obvious reason. Update them to a more recent version to begin troubleshooting.

   As suggested by @TheBlueMatt . Thanks to @mikehearn for the build instructions.

   Fetching a pre-built jar from my repo is hardly ideal, but it’s no different from what’s been done in the past. @mikehearn: Any interest in packaging it alongside bitcoinj releases in the future?

2. depends: update the comparison tool to a more recent version

   Travis comparison tests sometimes disconnect from bitcoind for some non-obvious
   reason. Update them to a more recent version to begin troubleshooting.

   4953b2e20c
3. 
   mikehearn commented at 8:31 am on September 4, 2014: contributor

   It’s already packaged like that. The pull tester JAR is built at the same time as all the others.

   BTW you won’t be able to run the latest comparison tool from git master. It expects getutxos to be present. I will take that out, but it’s unfortunate, because those tests found a very nasty regression that nobody else and nothing else had spotted.

4. 
   BitcoinPullTester commented at 9:14 am on September 4, 2014: none

   Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/p4837_4953b2e20c1df282f36e184aad1e20bfac27bc2e/ for binaries and test log. This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/ Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.
5. 
   laanwj commented at 9:48 am on September 4, 2014: member

   Update them to a more recent version to begin troubleshooting.

   As the current comparison tool cannot be used anymore after headers-first, I’m not sure how much troubleshooting this is worth. Or am I missing something?

6. 
   theuni commented at 3:50 pm on September 4, 2014: member

   @laanwj No, I just didn’t want to completely ignore the current false-negatives like this one: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/builds/34261401 . If you’d rather leave this as-is and see a few of those, that’s fine by me. @mikehearn Right, this uses bitcoind@bca2f2abac3, the revision before that change. This PR itself is using the updated version for Travis, so the “All is well” really means it.
7. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 6:29 am on September 5, 2014: member

   Lets hold off on this, I’m working on rewriting some of this for headers first and it seems the one running has some very old changes that were never even merged into bitcoinj :(.
8. laanwj added the label Tests on Sep 5, 2014
9. 
   laanwj commented at 10:04 am on September 18, 2014: member

   @TheBlueMatt how are the updates for headers-first going?
10. 
    laanwj commented at 9:48 am on October 1, 2014: member

    Closing in favor of #5006
11. laanwj closed this on Oct 1, 2014

    ---

12. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
theuni mikehearn BitcoinPullTester laanwj TheBlueMatt

Labels
Tests