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 18:10:28 GMT
On 31/05/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > sebb wrote:
>  >
>  > > On 31/05/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> 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:
>  > > >  > >
>  > > >  > >
>  > > >  > > > 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.
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > Just had another fail:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool)
>  > >  Time elapsed: 0.094 sec  <<< FAILURE!
>  > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: i 0 j 0 k 20
>  > visitCount 0
>  > > cycleCount 1 totalInstances 70 Length 21
>  > >        at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
>  > >        at
>  > junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
>  > >        at
>  > org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:949)
>  > >        at
>  > org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:812)
>  > >
>  > > Line 949 is the same as previous 947 (added 2 imports)
>  > >
>  > > Do the extra details of the numbers help?
>  > >
>  > >
>  >  Yes!  I think I have found the problem.  I think the change in r776085 to
>  > address POOL-125 inadvertently changed the order of the elements in the
>  > evictioncursor when the pool is operating in FIFO mode (why I asked about
>  > the line number above).  I have been able to reproduce the failure using jdk
>  > 1.4.  I am working on a fix.  Strange that it does not seem to show up using
>  > 1.6.  Must be a PRNG artifact.

Jut got the following failure with JDK 1.6:

testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool)
 Time elapsed: 0.047 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: lifo=false i=0 j=0 k=22
visitCount=1 cycleCount=2 totalInstances=56 twoLength=23
	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
	at org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:949)
	at org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:812)



>  >
>  >  Cryptic as they may be, I am happy to see that the unit tests picked up
>  > this little bug :)
>
>
> The numbers also show (as I now realise) that the error occurs on the
>  first loop (i=j=0) so there's no point in changing the number of loops
>  or switching the order.
>
>
>  >  Thanks!
>  >
>  >  Phil
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > >  >  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
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >  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