db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:17:20 GMT
On 8/25/05, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote: 
> 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
> assertions.
> 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?
> Thanks,
> -Rick
> 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?
> >

Here is my 2 cents on it - falling nicely in with all the talk about itches 
etc. :-) and based on *what I would do*.
If someone likes to support a certain jvm that is not 'standard', then it is 
up to that person to ensure all possible canons are covered & run with that 
jvm - *unless* the running of the test with another jvm actually exposes a 
bug in derby.
 I'd expect *everyone* to at *least* run with jdk1.4.2, and if there is a 
likelyhood of a difference in behavior, jdk1.5 by Sun.
I'd expect a fix if someone running with another jvm actually exposes a bug 
in derby.
 I would expect someone who's updating a master file that has already canons 
for other supported jvms to at least signal this to the list, and if 
possible, modify that canon wih a manual effort (i.e. without running the 
test with that jvm). 
 Finally, more high-level goal, we should accomodate support for other jvms 
in the tests and harness themselves, and avoid the need for canons.
 Does that sound reasonable?

View raw message