Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of vdichev@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=V6fxsn82duBCLWN+QVJYXL4ADs1Mu7iHJM3vuqMC8/+lf9hZ90mmJMUxJoaBL0Qw42
         igOVQtzX7ZT2uqoS24u3Cs32lx+d9Xk5iLBuisJbn2aGO+QI6Gdske3/H/X6iRyVpR+9
         /bfAwPKbN/wPK3SmiBZxto2V//xihHDX30Kcg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: vdichev@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik1VzPbzmmRCN4Y8coPn1Ad_r2WBef2dj2Viscq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1007862491.841283861836558.JavaMail.hudson@aegis>
	<AANLkTi=GMPO+VGR-2MjGU6cSmr7RyhgpsCJYhr0XqBzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikSe1T8vj2Ljn_PH1URq0M6MB0J1vbpTkXi52X2@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimPNEZ30uPF_VtWp4rniTyh8zRNHMDmx7jTvurS@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimAR=LJyzahALADg2LE3o+=u_EQWsNDH=B_xg5K@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinTbQ8woC3pV6kgLnkuf90_D7hKzpqtUCQoq_GC@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=4WO5sEdCE32X2bHJ=bQX32ssx5W_etoFO=JKa@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinKPc72SKkLkL=G6bD_bHFmW6akWA2VmG5NtLPR@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik1VzPbzmmRCN4Y8coPn1Ad_r2WBef2dj2Viscq@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:44:10 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTikhnX-zwZpGx=nwBA6gKuwRTpJ22RPVRJ_ehw9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: 
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Hudson_build_became_unstable=3A_ESME_=BB_Apache_Ent?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?erprise_Social_Messaging_Experiment_=28ESME=29_=23339?=
From: Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Sorry, I had assumed I know which test failed even before reading the
spec description... I was wrong, and I was trying to "fix" the wrong
test. I now tried to apply the fix again and I'm currently running the
tests in a loop again. If they haven't failed after 2 hours, I will
commit.

Vassil


On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> g
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org> wrote:
>> Well, it's not really a bug of the implementation, it's an
>> imperfection of the test. If one delivers the final product (war or
>> whatever it is), the tests are usually not there anyway, so I'm not
>> even sure it's worth a mention.
>
> Good point
>
>>
>> Vassil
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't see this bug has threatening 1.1
>>>
>>> We might want to have a section in the release notes called "Known
>>> bugs" - this bug and the other small bugs would be added to this
>>> section.
>>>
>>> What do you think about that?
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> There's some good news and some bad news regarding the tests.
>>>>
>>>> The good news is that I managed to reproduce the failing test fairly
>>>> easily- running the test in a loop until it fails resulted in a fail
>>>> after 10-15 minutes on my machine.
>>>>
>>>> The bad news is that with my fixes it still fails eventually, if not faster.
>>>>
>>>> This means we will probably have to revert to using the good
>>>> old-fashioned timeouts, which are a tradeoff between risking the test
>>>> to fail and slowing it down too much.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is certainly not critical for release, of course, but
>>>> eventually I want to have more deterministic tests, but this probably
>>>> means some small additions to the Distributor API.
>>>>
>>>> Vassil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> OK, I've setup some tests to run over the night (these are hard to
>>>>> reproduce) and we'll see what we get in the morning
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought I had these sorted out, but obviously not. The problem is
>>>>>>> that there's no easy way to find out when the message is going to
>>>>>>> appear in the timeline, because it's asynchronous. Will try to look
>>>>>>> for the problem tonight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> LOL - the test in the twittwerapi that I mentioned before - is no
>>>>>>>> failing on hudson as well -
>>>>>>>> https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/ESME/org.apache.esme$esme-server/339/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No idea why
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Apache Hudson Server
>>>>>>>> <hudson@hudson.apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> See <https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/ESME/org.apache.esme$esme-server/339/changes>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>