harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fedotov, Alexei A" <alexei.a.fedo...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [classlib][nio] SocketChannelTest fails on Windows 2003 server
Date Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:48:58 GMT
>I suggest the latter: comment
"assertSocketAction_NonBlock_BeforeConnect"
>in  "testSocket_NonBlock_ActionsBeforeConnect". Because the test
scenario
>is
>a kinda abnormal case, and I guess the test author didn't run the test
on
>the windows 2003 server, therefore, the test itself is invalid.

+1 for excluding the test case


With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Zhang [mailto:zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:56 PM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [classlib][nio] SocketChannelTest fails on Windows 2003
server
>
>On 10/27/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/27/06, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10/26/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > I ran classlib tests on Windows 2003 server and saw the
>> > > org.apache.harmony.nio.tests.java.nio.channels.SocketChannelTest
test
>> > > failure. I've reported this at
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1977.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Elena, does this test always fail on windows 2003 server?
>> >
>> > Can RI pass this test?
>>
>>
>> Andrew,
>> the test fails on RI too.
>>
>> iirc, there're some other tests in nio are platform dependent. We're
>> waiting
>> > for TestNG. :) These tests are marked with "FIXME".  If the test
you
>> found
>> > is also platform-dependent, maybe mark it with "FXIME" and comment
the
>> > assert is a simple workaround now. :) Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about testSocket_NonBlock_ActionsBeforeConnect() test.
It
>> uses special assertion method
assertSocketAction_NonBlock_BeforeConnect()
>> which, in turn, contains a few assertions and is called not from this
>test
>> only but from another test as well. And that test passes this
assertion.
>> I'm
>> not sure that I know which is better: to commented out the whole
>assertion
>> in the test or a particular assertion in the assert method :(
>
>
>I suggest the latter: comment
"assertSocketAction_NonBlock_BeforeConnect"
>in  "testSocket_NonBlock_ActionsBeforeConnect". Because the test
scenario
>is
>a kinda abnormal case, and I guess the test author didn't run the test
on
>the windows 2003 server, therefore, the test itself is invalid.
However,
>keeping the test there is still valuable to record the platform
>differences.
>
>> Could anyone look at the issue?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Elena
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Andrew Zhang
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Elena
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Andrew Zhang

Mime
View raw message