Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-7664

Exceptions when communicating with Perforce "No output for:" (probably slave-only)

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • Bug
    • Status: Closed (View Workflow)
    • Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • p4-plugin
    • None
    • Hudson 1.379, Perforce plugin 1.1.9

    Description

      I've seen a number of problems communicating with Perforce since upgrading to 1.1.9.
      The build log mentions "No output for: " and then a perforce command (e.g. counter/workspace). The build then fails.
      Usually the next build succeeds.
      See attached file.

      I've only seen it on slaves, i.e. remote clients.

      Attachments

        1. 2010-10-05-p4-no-output.txt
          2 kB
        2. HUDSON-7664.diff
          2 kB
        3. perforce.hpi
          295 kB
        4. perforce-rpetti-54.hpi
          299 kB
        5. perforce-rpetti-58.hpi
          305 kB

        Issue Links

          Activity

            Well I've installed the new plugin last friday morning. Since then we did not experience any perforce "no output" related problems. This is a good sign. We keep watching it!

            laszlo_kishalmi László Kishalmi added a comment - Well I've installed the new plugin last friday morning. Since then we did not experience any perforce "no output" related problems. This is a good sign. We keep watching it!

            Rob, I'm eagerly waiting for your findings wrt JENKINS-7809!

            kohsuke Kohsuke Kawaguchi added a comment - Rob, I'm eagerly waiting for your findings wrt JENKINS-7809 !
            rpetti Rob Petti added a comment -

            Work around released in perforce plugin version 1.2.0.

            rpetti Rob Petti added a comment - Work around released in perforce plugin version 1.2.0.
            torbent torbent added a comment -

            That's SO great! This means I may finally move on from Hudson 1.377 – to Jenkins, naturally

            torbent torbent added a comment - That's SO great! This means I may finally move on from Hudson 1.377 – to Jenkins, naturally
            torbent torbent added a comment -

            This issue started on Hudson, and our Hudson installation is actually still at 1.377 because of it. We've since moved some of our jobs to Jenkins and haven't seen the slightest trace of this problem, so I think it's (about) time to close it.

            torbent torbent added a comment - This issue started on Hudson, and our Hudson installation is actually still at 1.377 because of it. We've since moved some of our jobs to Jenkins and haven't seen the slightest trace of this problem, so I think it's (about) time to close it.

            People

              rpetti Rob Petti
              torbent torbent
              Votes:
              18 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              27 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: