Re: pynfs replay cache test SEQ9f

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 06:32:09PM +0000, Thomas Haynes wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> In this test:
> 
> def testReplayCache006(t, env):
>    """Send two solo sequence compounds with same seqid
> 
>    FLAGS: sequence all
>    CODE: SEQ9f
>    """
>    c = env.c1.new_client(env.testname(t))
>    sess = c.create_session()
>    res1 = sess.compound([])
>    check(res1)
>    res2 = sess.compound([], cache_this=True, seq_delta=0)
>    check(res2)
>    res1.tag = res2.tag = ""
>    if not nfs4lib.test_equal(res1, res2):
>        fail("Replay results not equal")
> 
> I don't see why the result should be NFS4_OK.
> 
> The first compound does not set sa_cachethis and the second
> does set it. According to RFC5661, the server is not required
> to cache the first request if the client does not request it.
> 
> And if the server does not cache the response, when it gets
> a request to replay it, it can return NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP:

If I'm reading that section correctly, it can't return
NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, that can only be returned on the next op of
the compound (and there is no next op in this case, only the one
SEQUENCE).

So I *think* the only correct options OK or FALSE_RETRY?

> I'm not sure if the test should be fixed to either
> 
> 1) allow either NFS4_OK or NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP
> 2) just remove the test.

Maybe just add cache_this to the first?

Looks like the following test is off too--I think a server's allowed to
return a cached reply instead of RETRY_UNCACHED_REP?

--b.