[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [Duplicity-team] Python 2.6.0 testing
From: |
edgar . soldin |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [Duplicity-team] Python 2.6.0 testing |
Date: |
Sun, 18 May 2014 19:29:41 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
On 18.05.2014 14:24, Michael Terry wrote:
> That first one is "expected" in the sense that I see it. But so far only
> with box.com <http://box.com>, and not, for example, that address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden> account. If you try other providers, does
> backendtest pass?
for the heck of it (i don't see it as a provider connected ;) as it all
works/worked properly still in 0.6.x
here's address@hidden:
./testing/manual/backendtest takes long but has nothing to complain.
manual duplicity works on full, collection-status but fails on incremental call
Registering (mktemp) temporary file
/tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2
Retrieving /demo/duplicity-testing/duplicity-full.20140518T171448Z.manifest.gpg
from WebDAV server
WebDAV GET /demo/duplicity-testing/duplicity-full.20140518T171448Z.manifest.gpg
request with headers: {'Connection': 'keep-alive', 'Authorization': 'Basic
ZGVtbzpkZW1v'}
WebDAV data length: 4
WebDAV response status 200 with reason 'OK'.
Backtrace of previous error: Traceback (innermost last):
File "/srv/www/vhosts/host/dupl-trunk.webdav-0.7/duplicity/backend.py", line
367, in inner_retry
return fn(self, *args)
File "/srv/www/vhosts/host/dupl-trunk.webdav-0.7/duplicity/backend.py", line
543, in get
"from backend") % util.ufn(local_path.name))
BackendException: File /tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2 not found
locally after get from backend
Attempt 1 failed. BackendException: File
/tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2 not found locally after get from
backend
>
> The second error there looks similar, in the sense that a get() call failed
> to download the file. I've seen bugs filed against 0.6.x that look similar.
>
don't believe it to be a lingering bug from 0.6
this is reproducable only with 0.7 branch against an account that i can use
properly w/ 0.6.x , reproducably ;P
..ede