db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:23:03 GMT
This situation could potentially improve as we migrate tests into an 
assertion-based framework. It's an issue to keep in mind as we write 

This raises another interesting issue:

o What is a reasonable minimum test barrier for committers to apply when 
approving a patch?

Is it enough for the committer to say: "Derbyall runs cleanly under 
jdk1.4 on my machine." Should a scrupulous committer also run Derbyall 
on J2ME? At this point there are 8+ vms where people expect the tests to 
run. And there may be a couple dozen operating systems. Clearly we have 
to draw some line between the committer's responsibility and the 
responsibility of the platform users. What's the gold standard for 
committing patches?

I'm a bit unclear on our process for arresting test drift across useful 
platforms. Can someone point me at a description of what we do today?


Øystein Grøvlen wrote:

>>>>>>"KAH" == Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@Sun.COM> writes:
>    KAH> Deepa Remesh <dremesh@gmail.com> writes:
>    >> On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@sun.com> wrote:
>    KAH> [...]
>    >>> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
>    >> 
>    >> Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
>    >> 
>    >>> I am working on a patch
>    >>> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
>    >>> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
>    >>> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
>    >>> those platforms too?
>    >> 
>    >> As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
>    >> modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
>    >> with the specific jvm)
>    KAH> Thanks, Deepa! I'll download it and try to get the tests running.
>In my opinion, it seems to be requiring a bit much, if a developer is
>expected to download special VMs in order to be able to modify a
>general test.  Would it not be better to do this in cooperation with
>someone who regularly runs on this VM?

View raw message