Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33D4C10881 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1905 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2014 08:06:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 1840 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2014 08:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 1827 invoked by uid 99); 28 Nov 2014 08:06:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:06:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,WEIRD_PORT X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mail2jimma@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.172] (HELO mail-wi0-f172.google.com) (209.85.212.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:05:57 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so17758587wiv.5 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:04:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yNGUxFLzPVjnpqdonygBfL4S530SdN2BGgzJxU1G218=; b=M8CZYXb7+3e+gudkdJShAdjoI+SuHkKmTWaBwzQ30+eRnQkd8Nd819FUWDdmvfDCdJ 9lKkyJkt/xa3T1rQsUjnsxkRxkE3RLhQJYLdahgVKe4HvjhxtVO+79IR+6GCys6YgXqJ 70wfuXsjp4v7HcfpJmYj7woZHtKIsb6Ffamp73+hQaOeok5p6aEYte3j8TYSzhppCj/4 6LO467wiAaASJKtnGiPMmQnCA3FuwrqlYacpFfftF1SGiMD07n3pVBtuLw+0Ly4EuhsS paQAcj0M5h0ab3udCZ+JbSVK1VwB853n4aAbbsCfsyIserW4xj8tKItGqmwaAYBj3o9v JPqQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.80.194 with SMTP id t2mr59473824wix.6.1417161846472; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:04:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.218.149 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:04:06 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: mail2jimma@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:04:06 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: xkms test failures From: Jim Ma To: Andrei Shakirin Cc: "dev@cxf.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044289da72c6bb0508e6b453 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d044289da72c6bb0508e6b453 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Andrei and Aki. Before the test running, I checked and didn't find any process is listening port 1099. I didn't look at these test in depth, Is it possible that karaf container is not shutdown successfully in previous test teardown ? BTW, port 1099 is usually started as the RMI registry port, can we configured karaf to start with a higher number port ? On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > Exactly, the message "Caused by: java.rmi.server.ExportException: Port > already in use: 1099; nested exception is: > java.net.BindException: Address already in use" shows some port > conflicts. > > Either you have more than one Karaf container running or this port is use= d > by other software on your machine. > > Regards, > Andrei. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aki Yoshida [mailto:elakito@gmail.com] > > Sent: Donnerstag, 27. November 2014 11:23 > > To: dev@cxf.apache.org; jim ma > > Subject: Re: xkms test failures > > > > I think you have another karaf instance running on your box. > > > > Exception in thread "JMX Connector Thread > > [service:jmx:rmi://0.0.0.0:44444/jndi/rmi://0.0.0.0:1099/karaf-root]" > > java.lang.RuntimeException: > > Port already in use: 44444; > > > > 2014-11-27 3:28 GMT+01:00 Jim Ma : > > > Hi, > > > Does anyone hit these failures when run xkms integration tests ? I > > > tried these tests from cxf 2.7.13 tag in different machines(Fedora > > > 20/oracle > > > jdk7) and got the same failures.It looks the karaf container didn't > > > start well and there are connections timeout. Full error stacktrace, > > > please see the attached file. > > > Do we have to involve karaf and bundle things for the xkms test ? Is > > > there something we can improve to make these test more robust ? > > > > > > ValidatorCRLTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.handlers.validator.Valida= t > > > orCRLTest > > > =C2=BB Runtime > > > JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 =C2=BB R= untime > > > Container... > > > > > > ValidatorTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.handlers.validator.Validator= T > > > est > > > =C2=BB Runtime > > > JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 =C2=BB R= untime > > > Container... > > > XKMSServiceTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.service.XKMSServiceTest = =C2=BB > > > Runtime C... > > > JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 =C2=BB R= untime > > > Container... > > > XKRSSDisableTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.service.XKRSSDisableTes= t > > > =C2=BB Runtime > > > JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 =C2=BB R= untime > > > Container... > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jim > --f46d044289da72c6bb0508e6b453--