commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [MATH] Jenkins unit test failure
Date Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:19:04 GMT
On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>>> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb <> wrote:
>>>>> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
>>>>> All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure which ran on H10.
>>>>> This may have some bearing on the result; I don't yet know.
>>>>> I had a quick look at 2 tests that failed:
>>>>> SimpleRegressionTest.testPerfect
>>>>> SimpleRegressionTest.testPerfectNegative
>>>>> Although the test case has some instance data, these particular tests
>>>>> do not use any, so it does not look like a concurrency issue in the
>>>>> unit test itself.
>>>>> The SimpleRegression class has mutable instance data, but the test
>>>>> cases create their own instance.
>>>>> I don't know anything about the math functions involved, but it looks
>>>>> as though Infinity might result from getSignificance() if
>>>>> getSlopeStdErr() returns 0, as the latter is used as a divisor. Or if
>>>>> the field sumXX is 0 because that is also used as a divisor.
>>>>> Maybe the H10 host has different floating point hardware?
>>>>> I'll try running some more tests on H10.
>>>> the build failed again on H10; exactly the same tests failed as before:
>>>> This test:
>>>> Previous failure:
>>> This is actually a bug.  Thanks, sebb (and Jenkins)!
>>> Has been here since 1.x.  What is going on is that the data sets
>>> used in the test cases are set up to be perfect linear
>>> relationships, which should in fact lead to mean square error (and
>>> hence slope standard error) equal to 0.  The Jenkins box must be
>>> getting exact 0.  The funny thing is the test is there to validate
>>> correct performance for models like this.  Its success unfortunately
>>> depends on poor precision.
>>> I will open a JIRA for this.  I don't think it is a release blocker
>>> for 3.4.1, as I am sure you would get the same thing in any earlier
>>> version of [math].
>> OK good to know.
>> I'll leave the H10 Jenkins job for now to make it easy to retest.
> My first guess here was wrong.  The infinities are being handled
> correctly for the JDKs I have.  Something must be going awry in the
> t distribution cumulative probability computation for +INF on the
> box that is failing.  Is there a way to find out exactly what JDK
> and OS version are being used? 

I just committed a test that tests the t distribution computations
directly.  It seems to have run clean; but the other test ran clean
too.  Is there any way to force the build to use the host that fails?

> Phil
>>> Phil
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message