aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Holly Cummins <>
Subject Re: blueprint itest failures...
Date Sat, 14 Dec 2013 00:48:53 GMT
Another thing that concerns me about this is that it's exactly the sort of problem which the
'withlatestanapshot' build is supposed to catch. It clearly hasn't caught it, so either it's
not working as I hoped, or something about the uber bundle makes things pass even if we're
running all the latest code.

It should be that the main build tests the released versions, so über-1.0 and its back-level
constituents. Then the snapshot build tests the latest code, which is uber-snapshot and snapshots
of each included bundle - ie, the latest code of everything.

If the snapshot build is actually getting that coverage I think it is, and things are failing
anyway with individual bundles, I wonder if we need to run tests with both uber and individual


On 13 Dec 2013, at 20:36, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:

> While writing a test for ARIES-1141, I discovered that the blueprint-itests were pulling
in “org.apache.aries.blueprint/1.0.0” which is the older “big blueprint bundle” instead
of the individual “core”, “cm”, etc… bundles.   There are several issues:
> 1) Since karaf and everything has been updated to using the littler bundles, this means
we aren’t testing what people are using
> 2) We haven’t done a “release” of the big bundle since 1.0.0, but there have been
releases of the littler things.  This means the littler things haven’t had the itests run
with them. 
> 3) I flipped the itests to use the little bundles and now we have couple of test failures.
> Running org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.TestRegistrationListener
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.968 sec <<<
> Running org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerTest
> Tests run: 4, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 48.701 sec <<<
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.ASMMultiBundleTest  also fails semi-randomly.   That
may be the sync vs non-sync startup issues.   Need to double check that.
> If you have some time, please try taking a look.   It looks like we may have broken a
bunch of things through the various releases and that obviously concerns me.   The BlueprintContainerTest
is in testScheduledExecMemoryLeak  which kind of scares me.   
> -- 
> Daniel Kulp
> -
> Talend Community Coder -

View raw message