harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Li" <liyilei1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general][tests]To restrict the side-effect of junit tests by launching it in a different VM.
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:36:24 GMT
 Yes, in some special cases. Both RI and Harmony adopt some cache mechanism
in resolving class in ObjectInputStream.

On 11/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Right - I guess the ambiguity for me is if the side effect was correct
> behavior or not - we're using this "run all in one VM" mode in DRLVM
> tests to find harmful side effects...
>
> geir
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > When you changed the test case to avoid side-effect have you made the
> test
> > weaker? If not I'd prefer to run them in a fork mode "once" because in
> this
> > case they run faster.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > 2006/11/27, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com>:
> >> Hi, all:
> >>     During fixing the bug of Harmony-2249, I found that the testcase
> >> in one
> >> junit test file might lead to other fail in a different junit file.
> After
> >> digging into it, I am aware that testcase can influence the global
> >> state of
> >> a VM, for example, the resolution of class (both RI and Harmony have
> >> similar
> >> behavior). Although I changed the testcase as a workaround,  it is not
> >> tested so thoroughly as I expected in order not to lead other tests to
> >> fail.
> >>
> >>    So I recommend if we can specify some testcase that should run in
> >> junit
> >> with fork = "true". Maybe to add some annotation is one resolution or
> >> to add
> >> them to a property file as we done with excluded ones.
> >>    Any suggestion?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Leo Li
> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message