db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject CompatibilityTest issue (was Re: Regression Test Report)
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:45:43 GMT
On 11/10/06, Ole.Solberg@sun.com <Ole.Solberg@sun.com> wrote:
> [Auto-generated mail]
>
> *tinderbox_trunk15* 473603/2006-11-11 01:52:19 CET
>
> Failed  Tests    OK  Skip  Duration       Platform
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *Jvm: 1.5*
>   SunOS-5.10_i86pc-i386
>     1    516    515     2   120.57%     derbyall

The failure here is in junitTests/derbyNet/CompatibilityTest.java, due
to my recent checkin for the ant junitreport target, which also sets
the system property derbyTesting.junit to the location of junit.jar
with regards to granting permissions for the security manager setup. I
was hoping that this property would also be set properly in the old
harness via SecurityManagerSetup, but unfortunately that is not the
case due to the jvm forking that occurs in the old harness.

The test can be fixed by granting " permission java.io.FilePermission
"${user.home}${/}junit.properties", "read"; " to all. While this isn't
necessarily the best fix, it's low risk, and solves the problem of
this test continuously failing.

The next step up would be to fix the old harness to pass the
derbyTesting.junit property to forked VMs as necessary. This would fix
the CompatibilityTest as written to the old junit base class while
running under the old harness, at the expense of some time modifying
the old harness.

The ideal fix would be to rewrite CompatibilityTest to extend from
BaseJDBCTestCase and declare a proper suite method, instead of
extending from DerbyJunitTest. However, this has proven to be
non-trivial at this point.

I'm somewhat inclined to remove CompatiblityTest altogether until it
can be rewritten to conform to our current JUnit usage patterns. But,
the security policy alteration described above is innocuous enough to
allow the compatblity test to continue running under the old harness
for now. So, currently leaning towards the policy alteration so that
we can keep this particular test running...

Opinions?

andrew

Mime
View raw message