--- On Fri, 8/14/09, Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc(a)rambler.ru> wrote: OK, this and Chad's comment suggests the option is multi-process/IPC. One more question: * Can we assume PHP has PCNLT support or will the test require startup from a shell script? Dan

dan nessett wrote: You can compile PHP both thread safe or non-thread safe (note that if some php extension isn't really thread safe, it will break the server). If you aren't using a sapi based on threads, it doesn't make sense to compile php thread safe, since it will run much slower. Other servers will run it as cgi or fastcgi. If the function has several names use function_exists() or check the mediawiki version ($wgVersion).

Dmitriy Sintsov wrote: I don't think it's so bad but YMMV. The worst offenders are extensions. If the maintainer don't build them thread safe, they can easily miss a TSRM_CC in a function call, which means a segfault when threaded. In fact, I'm not sure to have understood the problem. I find the proposed options quite bizarre. So if you have understood the "specification", please enlighten me. :)

There should be no need for multiple servers in any case; web software is pretty good about coexisting. ;) Multiple versions of MediaWiki can sit side by side in separate directories with no trouble. You can even run multiple versions of PHP simply by setting them up as FastCGI applied to different paths. Really though, this thread has gotten extremely unfocused; it's not clear what's being proposed to begin with and we've wandered off to a lot of confusion. We should probably start up a 'testing center' page on mediawiki.org and begin by summarizing what we've already got -- then we can move on to figuring out what else we need. -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) On Aug 17, 2009, at 4:25, Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc(a)rambler.ru> wrote:

* Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> [Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:27:26 -0700]: Wouldn't a truly robust comparsion require two separate AMP's instead of simple apache virtual hosts? Interesting, I didn't knew that it is achievable via FastCGI (I've used only mod_php). Then, that might be enough. What about using different versions of PHP?! I believe than Dan wanted to compare the results of different SVN snapshots execution at the function/methods level, too, not just the final output. What can be used for that, XML RPC, perhaps? I remember that random syntax generators were used back in 90's for testing purposes. Sorry if my messages pollute the mail list, I'll try to post less often. I am definitely not an expert, it's just interesting to read sometimes. Dmitriy

--- On Fri, 8/14/09, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: I'm sorry my questions make you angry. I don't recall ranting about PHP. Actually, I kind of like it. Lack of thread safety is an implementation problem not a problem with the language. But, let's not dwell on your rant about my stupidity. Let's do something positive. You are an expert on the MW software and presumably PHP, Apache and MySQL. If you find it ridiculous that a newbie is driving the discussion about MW QA (I certainly do), pick up the ball and run with it. How would you fix the parser so all disabled tests in parserTests run? How would you build a test harness so developers can write unit tests for their bug fixes, feature additions and extensions? How would you integrate these unit tests into a good set of regression tests? How would you divide up the work so a set of developers can complete it in a reasonable amount of time? How do you propose achieving consensus on all of this? On the other hand, maybe you would rather code than think strategically. Fine. Commit yourself to fixing the parser so all of the disabled tests run and also all or most of the pages on Wikipedia do not break and I will shut up about the CPRT. Commit yourself to creating a test harness that other developers can use to write unit tests and I will gladly stop writing emails about it. Commit yourself to develop the software the organizes the unit tests into a product regression test that developers can easily run and I will no longer bother you about MW QA. My objective is a MW regression test suite that provides evidence that any extensions I write do not break the product. Once that objective is achieved, I will no longer infect your ears with dumb questions. Dan

I feel uncomfortable ignoring this kind of response on this or any list, so I will say this at the risk of being personally attacked. I'm certain that treating people this way detracts from both motivation and productivity - for volunteers and staff alike. Responses like this lack any sense of professionalism, and are certainly better off discarded than sent. Life is too short to be so easily angered and impatient. - Trevor On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: