search

bfg / mojox-run

MojoX::Run - asynchronous external command execution for Mojo
5 stars 3 forks source link

error of mojox_run or my error #3

Open sugar84 opened 12 years ago

sugar84 commented 12 years ago

Hello, Brane.

I have this code and have some problems with it, it has started 4 processes and 2 of them killed (exit_signal => 9). Why does this triggered? And piece of stdout is broken (odd symbols), but it's less problem, because it is simply solved with RE. And why some of process had killed by SIGKILL? It's a bug? Why DESTROY method started with ref_count to object about 4?

And in this script in my desktop i had in 7 processe 1-2 killed. Can you explain this behavior? In this small example proccesses after kill made stdout, but in real app when message is larger, stdout after kill was blank. And code did not work well.

Best regards, Anton Ukolov

bfg commented 12 years ago

This is weird indeed.

Can you tell me more about your environment? OS, kernel, perl version?

Seems like some streams are not reported as closed by mojo::ioloop (

However, you're having a bug in your code.

If you're spawning a sub it's return value will be returned in result structure, not stdout/stderr; so line 13 should be:

return "_\__hello world!__/_";
sugar84 commented 12 years ago

Bug? Are sure? I use "spawn", not "spawn_sub", and in your test you are doing the same thing. And send data to stdout, and MojoX::Run catches it.

On server: perl 5.10.0, Mojolicious 1.11, Linux 2.6.33.2, there is running first snippet of code

On desktop: perl 5.12.4, Mojolicious 1.11, Linux 3.0.4, there i've run this script

But why DESTROY was triggered? The object was not flushed, ref count is >= 1. And kills were made from DESTROY

bfg commented 12 years ago

oh, you're right :)

sugar84 commented 12 years ago

ok =) Please, take look at this script at the END section. You will see that 2 of 7 process got KILL signal. In my real app i had 3 of 5 killed processes before they print result to STDOUT. Is it bug? If yes how to fix it? Can you produce this behavior on your own machine?