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 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:42:54 GMT
On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil Steitz 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.
> >
>  The modified code looks correct.  Could be a test bug.  Still
> investigating...

I've noticed that k == (twoLength - 1) i.e. it is always the last
entry that fails the check, and it seems to always be 1 less than
expected.

I've added some code to my working copy to print out the visit counts
for the other entries on failure; if that works OK I'll commit it.

>  Phil
>
>
> >
> > Cryptic as they may be, I am happy to see that the unit tests picked up
> this little bug :)
> >
> > 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