[Cruisecontrolrb-developers] Some updates, and a couple of test requests

[Brian Guthrie]

c.f. https://github.com/thoughtworks/cruisecontrol.rb/commit/17ca0f8b3f03e166fe1d6f240e1ef45c5e604a8a

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Brian Guthrie <btguthrie at gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends on which pid file you're referring to. The main server pid
> file, tmp/pids/server.pid, will do whatever script/rails server -d
> does. It's possible that means it will just do the dumb Mongrel thing.
> init.rb:
>
>      Rails::Server.new.tap { |server|
>        require ENV_PATH
>        Dir.chdir(Rails.application.root)
>        server.start
>      }
>
> Stopping:
>
>    def stop_server
>      pid_file = Rails.root.join("tmp", "pids", "server.pid")
>
>      if pid_file.exist?
>        exec "kill -KILL #{pid_file.read.chomp}"
>        pid_file.delete
>      end
>    end
>
>    def stop_builders
>      Rails.root.join("tmp", "pids", "builders").children.each do |pid_file|
>        Platform.kill_child_process(pid_file.read.chomp)
>      end
>    end
>
>
> The builder files don't try to be smart at all. They will create pid
> files as necessary or reuse them if they already exist.
> script/builder:
>
>  Platform.project_pid_file(project.name).tap do |f|
>    f.dirname.mkpath
>    f.open("w") {|f| f.write Process.pid }
>  end
>
>  ProjectBlocker.block(project)
>
> This is exactly the previous pid-creation behavior, except that the
> logic has been moved to the builder, and I'm attempting a pid cleanup
> as well as the old ProjectBlocker.release on error or interrupt.
>
> Looking more closely at daemon_helper, it's clearly handling a lot of
> useful stuff beyond what's in place in init, so it looks like it needs
> to be fixed before I can sign off this bug. But I'm confused as to why
> you'd keep your pid-management code separate when the use already
> expects -d to handle this stuff. What's the benefit?
>
> As a maintainer, I wish there was a lot more test coverage of both
> places. :) This my work has not improved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Brian Guthrie <btguthrie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also, as far as I know, we don't need or use anything in the daemon/
>>> subdirectory now; we're relying on Rails' server daemonization, the
>>> killtree script, and straight-up kill to do the work.
>>
>> If a process dies or gets killed, and leaves a stale pid file behind,
>> is all the pid-handling code smart enough to detect this and recreate
>> a new pidfile for the new pid?  I.e. we don't act like mongrel, and
>> refuse to start with a stale pid?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cruisecontrolrb-developers mailing list
>> Cruisecontrolrb-developers at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-developers
>>
>