commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] 1.5-RC2 available for review
Date Sun, 31 May 2009 15:00:53 GMT
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Changes in RC2
> > > > >
> > > > >  * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > > > >  * Restored development reports
> > > > >  * Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP,  GKOP tests
> -
> > > > > thanks, sebb!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Unfortunately not enough, see below...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  * Added link to release javadoc in site.xml
> > > > >  * Fixed xml errors in changes.xml
> > > > >  * Added test for ErodingPerKeyKeyedObjectPool
> > > > >  * Changed clirr comparison version from 1.3 to 1.4
> > > > >  * Added missing attributes to sources jar manifest
> > > > >
> > > > >  The files are here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-pool-1.5-RC2/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Source and binary archives agree with each other; hashes and sigs OK.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I got a new test failure with Java 1.4.2 and Maven:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool)
> > >
> > >
> > > >  Time elapsed: 0.063 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> > > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError
> > > >       at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
> > > >       at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
> > >
> > >
> > > >       at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:27)
> > >
> > >
> > > >       at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:947)
> > >
> > >
> > > >       at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:810)
> > >
> > >
> > > > I tried re-running the test, and it was OK. Tried rebuild and retest -
> OK.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, that particular test does not use threads or
> > > > timers as part of the test case, so that suggests that there might be
> > > > a timing/threading issue in the main pool code.
> > > >
> > > > I'll try re-running the test case a few more times to see if I can get
> > > > it to go wrong again.
> > > >
> > > > Also, clearly the failure message needs to be enhanced to show which
> > > > of the following checks failed:
> > > >
> > > > assertTrue(visitCount >= cycleCount &&
> > > >                           visitCount <= cycleCount + 1);
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately a lot of the assertions fail to provide any details of
> > > > what has gone wrong, which make debugging a lot harder.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >  Thanks for finding and looking into this.  Should not be happening.
> Sorry
> > > the tests in general and this one in particular are so cryptic.  What
> this
> > > one is doing is verifying that the evictor visits idle instances in the
> > > keyed pools in oldest-to-youngest order and does not systematically miss
> > > any.  What would be good to know at the time of the failure above is the
> > > values of the local variables visitCount, cycleCount and totalInstances.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Probably also the values of the enclosing loop counts.
> > It would perhaps be useful to not fail on the first such error, but
> > only fail when all the objects have been checked, so one could see how
> > many objects are not visited the expected number of times.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What is going on in this part of the test is that  there are three keyed
> > > pools randomly generated containing a total of totalInstances idle
> objects.
> > > The evictor is run a random number of times (between 10 and 60) and what
> we
> > > expect is that each instance in the combined pool will be "visited"
> either
> > > cycleCount or cycleCount +1 times, where
> > >  cycleCount = (runs * pool.getNumTestsPerEvictionRun())
> /
> > > totalInstances.  That is the assertion that is failing.   I don't see
> off
> > > the top of my head how this can be timing or concurrency-related.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Could there be an issue with checking the age?
> > I don't know how the ages are compared, but Java time resolution means
> > multiple objects can be created in the same time slot.
> >
> >
>  Not in this case.  The test that is failing is not looking at age or
> "evicting" instances because of age.  It is just validating idle objects in
> the pool (testWhileIdle = true).

Could the evictor be visiting items in the wrong order?
Perhaps favouring one object over another?

I guess we'd need to validate all the counts before failing in order
to find out.

> >
> >
> > > I will
> > > also look into this and see if I can get it to fail.  Thanks again for
> your
> > > help on this.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In case it helps, my DOS script for this is:
> >
> > call mvn compiler:testCompile
> > echo Start >>testn.log
> > :LOOP0
> > echo %DATE% %TIME% >>testn.log
> > call mvn -Dtest=TestGenericKeyedObjectPool surefire:test
> > goto LOOP%ERRORLEVEL%
> > :LOOP1
> > type target\surefire-reports\*.txt >>testn.log
> > call bell
> >
> > If you are not using Windows, it should be easy to change accordingly
> >
> > I have also just seen the following error:
> >
> > Running
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool
> > java.util.NoSuchElementException: Timeout waiting for
> idle object
> >        at
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.GenericKeyedObjectPool.borrowObject(GenericKeyedObjectPool.java:1139)
> >        at
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool$TestThread.run(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:1339)
> >        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:534)
> >
> > I'm working on improving the reporting for this as well (at present
> > the stack trace only goes to stderr; it would be useful if it was
> > added to the surefire report).
> >
> >
>  Thanks.  That one could be timing.  Pls go ahead and commit your
> improvements so we can be looking at the same traces.

OK, done.

>  Phil
>
>
> >
> >
> > >  Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this is a problem, but the RELEASE-NOTES etc refer to
> 1.5-RC2.
> > > >
> > > > The OSGI versions likewise include the RC2.
> > > >
> > > > Does that mean there will need to be another build and vote before
> > > >
> > > >
> > > release?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >  Yes.  I will roll a "final" candidate with the artifact name changed
> (but
> > > tag name still RC-) and we will VOTE on that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  The tag is here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POOL_1_5_RC2/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I used "Last Changed Rev: 780316"
> > > >
> > > > The differences between the xml files have now disappeared; not sure
> > > > what went wrong before.
> > > >
> > > > Also the only difference between the tag and the source archives are
> > > > doap and release notes, as expected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >  Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message