Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rails system tests using puma sometimes result in MRI C-level system "Crash Report" #1732

Closed
jrochkind opened this issue Feb 26, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@jrochkind
Copy link

I don't have complete reproduction steps, this is still not totally reproducible to me.

But in my Rails 5.2, using the new 'system tests' (with the shared connection thing), and rspec-rails and capybara (not sure if any of these are involved, but that's where it happens)...

I sometimes get the hard C-level system crash (not sure what to call this, the one that says "Crash Report"), where the last line in the ruby stack trace is puma:

/Users/jrochkind/.gem/ruby/2.5.3/gems/puma-3.12.0/lib/puma/thread_pool.rb:133:in `block in spawn_thread'

When posted in an rspec-rails issue, they suggested I file here

I'm pretty good at debugging ruby level problems, even tricky ones. But when it's a C-level Crash Report like this, I'm at a loss. (Especially when it may be a concurrency race condition of some kind? I have a feeling...)

@evanphx
Copy link
Member

evanphx commented Mar 11, 2019

Sadly this isn't a puma bug. Your ruby implementation is crashing for an unknown reason. I'd suggest opening a rails or ruby core bug report.

@evanphx evanphx closed this as completed Mar 11, 2019
@jrochkind
Copy link
Author

jrochkind commented Mar 12, 2019

OK, thanks. The problems did become repeatable, and I did eliminate them by switching my capybara web server driver from puma to webrick. But I can believe it's puma triggering a bug in MRI.

I'm just a bit despondent of anyone figuring out what it is or doing anything about it. Will probably just keep using webrick rather than puma in my capybara tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants