harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "tatyana doubtsova" <tatyanadoubts...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] aiming no regression
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:46:29 GMT
There are 2 new intermittent failure on winXP msvc debug drlvm:

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2820   - luni module



http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2821   - nio module

no swing failures observed.

Thanks,
Tanya


On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> > On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> > Instead we may remove all swing tests from CC when run on J9 and try
> to
> >> > fix the
> >> > problem
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> geir
> >
> >
> >
> > To remove tests from CC only we need a special exclude lists for CC. Is
> it
> > OK to store it together with modules exclude lists to update it with
> > classlib ws?
>
> I guess my question is "why is CC special?" IOW, shouldn't we exclude
> those tests for J9 in general?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Also option in the build to exclude some modules will be very useful.
> > Something like '-Dnot.build.module=swing'.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Vladimir
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Mikhail
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2006/12/20, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com>:
> >> >> Actually, I was able to see these failures on swing tests only. But
> >> >> even for
> >> >> swing these failures reproduced intermittently and only when all
> swing
> >> >> tests
> >> >> run in the one VM.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  Thanks, Vladimir
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 12/19/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > have you seen this stack when other tests run? maybe gui
> >> >> > breaks something causing the failure? Are you able to reproduce
> the
> >> >> > problem?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Mikhail
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2006/12/19, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com>:
> >> >> > > On 12/19/06, Ivanov, Alexey A < alexey.a.ivanov@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > There's only one GUI test in your list:
> >> >> javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest.
> >> >> > > > The others test text model, and this particular tests
don't
> use
> >> any
> >> >> > > > swing UI components at all.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > If I remember your reports correctly, the latter three
tests
> >> fail
> >> >> > > > because of some serialization failure.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yes, testParamString at javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest and
> >> >> > testSerializable
> >> >> > > for other tests. But actually the stack trace is similar
> >> (below) so
> >> I
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > > it not gui test problem. It is just reproduce this issue.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >  Thanks, Vladimir
> >> >> > > Stack trace:
> >> >> > > Test: testParamStringClass: javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest
> >> >> > > java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2553)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort (Arrays.java:2516)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2872)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2889)
> >> >> > > at java.beans.BeanInfoWrapper.getPropertyDescriptors(
> >> >> > BeanInfoWrapper.java
> >> >> > > :77)
> >> >> > > at java.beans.BeanInfoWrapper.getPropertyDescriptors(
> >> >> > BeanInfoWrapper.java
> >> >> > > :74)
> >> >> > > at javax.swing.JComponent.paramString(JComponent.java:1334)
> >> >> > > at java.awt.Component.toString(Component.java:166)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest.testParamString(JToggleButtonTest.java
> >> >> > :64)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:25)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> javax.swing.BasicSwingTestCase.runBareSuper(BasicSwingTestCase.java
> >> :117)
> >> >> > > at javax.swing.SwingTestCase$1.run(SwingTestCase.java:45)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.runAndNotify(InvocationEvent.java:92)
> >> >> > > at
> >> java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.dispatch(InvocationEvent.java:81)
> >> >> > > at java.awt.EventQueueCore.dispatchEventImpl(EventQueueCore.java
> >> :133)
> >> >> > > at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:144)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> java.awt.EventDispatchThread.runModalLoop(EventDispatchThread.java
> :75)
> >> >> > > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:48)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Test: testSerializableClass:
> >> >> > > javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_SerializationTest
> >> >> > > java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2553)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2516)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2517)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2872)
> >> >> > > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2889)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.computeSerialVersionUID(
> >> >> > ObjectStreamClass.java
> >> >> > > :54)
> >> >> > > at
> >> java.io.ObjectStreamClass.addToCache(ObjectStreamClass.java:211)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookupStreamClass(
> >> ObjectStreamClass.java
> >> >> > :937)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookup(ObjectStreamClass.java:90)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.addToCache(ObjectStreamClass.java
> >> :23)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookupStreamClass(
> >> ObjectStreamClass.java
> >> >> > :937)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookup(ObjectStreamClass.java:90)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeClassDescForClass(
> >> >> > ObjectOutputStream.java
> >> >> > > :110)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeNewObject(
> >> ObjectOutputStream.java
> >> >> > :1644)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObjectInternal(
> >> >> > ObjectOutputStream.java
> >> >> > > :1956)
> >> >> > > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject
> >> >> (ObjectOutputStream.java:1785)
> >> >> > > at
> >> >> java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject(ObjectOutputStream.java:1749)
> >> >> > > at javax.swing.BasicSwingTestCase.serializeObject(
> >> >> > BasicSwingTestCase.java
> >> >> > > :496)
> >> >> > > at javax.swing.SerializableTestCase.setUp
> >> >> (SerializableTestCase.java:50)
> >> >> > > at javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_SerializationTest.setUp
> >> >> > > (AbstractDocument_SerializationTest.java:43)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Regards,
> >> >> > > > Alexey.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >On 12/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>
wrote:
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> > 2006/12/18, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com
>:
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> > 2006/12/1, Geir Magnusson Jr.
<geir@pobox.com>:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 4) We have cruise controls
running classlibrary
> tests
> >> on
> >> >> > > > DRLVM.
> >> >> > > > >We
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > need to decide what
will we do when DRLVM+Classlib
> >> >> cruise
> >> >> > > > control
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > reports failure.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Stop and fix the problem.
 Is there really a question
> >> >> > here?  I
> >> >> > > > >agree
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Yes, there is a question here.
"Stop and fix" includes
> >> >> > > > "discuss".
> >> >> > > > >But
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> > as we now know discussion may
take several days. And
> >> while
> >> >> > some
> >> >> > > > >> people
> >> >> > > > >> >> > discuss what the problem is other
people can't proceed
> >> with
> >> >> > > > >> >> > development and patch
> >> >> > > > >> >> > intagration.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > To have better pace and better
CC up-time we need
> >> something
> >> >> > else
> >> >> > > > but
> >> >> > > > >> >> not
> >> >> > > > >> >> > just "stop and fix". I suggest
"revert and continue"
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> What's the difference, other than
debating the
> >> semantics of
> >> >> > "fix"
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > >> >> "revert"?
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> We all agree - but I still don't think
you're clearly
> >> stating
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > >> >> problem.  I think that the core problem
is that we don't
> >> >> > > > immediately
> >> >> > > > >> >> react to CC failure.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> Immediately reacting to CC failure
should be the first
> >> >> order of
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > >day
> >> >> > > > >> >> here.  Reacting to me is making the
decision, quickly,
> >> about
> >> >> > > > either
> >> >> > > > >> >> rolling back the change ("reverting")
or doing something
> >> >> else.
> >> >> > > > The
> >> >> > > > >key
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> is being responsive.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> It seems that what happens is that
we wait, and then
> sets
> >> of
> >> >> > > > changes
> >> >> > > > >> >> pile up, and I think that doing mass
rollbacks at that
> >> point
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > > > >solve
> >> >> > > > >> >> it, but make a mess.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> The example of what I envision is
when I broke the
> >> build in
> >> >> > DRLVM,
> >> >> > > > >> >> Gregory told me immediately, and I
fixed immediately -
> w/o
> >> a
> >> >> > > > rollback.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> All I'm saying is :
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> 1) We need to be far better with reaction
time
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > I would say we need to be far better with
> fixing/reverting
> >> >> time.
> >> >> > > > >> > If we reacted immediately and than discussed
for two
> weeks
> >> >> -- we
> >> >> > > > would
> >> >> > > > >> not
> >> >> > > > >> > be better than where we are now
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Yes, fixing/reverting is included. It's what
I meant.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> 2) We have intelligent people - we
can be agile in this
> by
> >> >> > making
> >> >> > > > >> >> decisions (quickly!) on a case by
case basis what to do.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> I'll also suggest that we ask each
committer to check
> the
> >> CC
> >> >> > event
> >> >> > > > >> >> stream before committing, so you don't
commit into a bad
> >> >> state
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > > > >> things.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> One of my problems is that I don't
trust the CC stream,
> >> and
> >> >> > don't
> >> >> > > > >> >> clearly see it because it's mixed
in the other drek of
> the
> >> >> > > > commits@
> >> >> > > > >> list.
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > The problem is intermittent failures.
I suggest that we
> >> >> exclude
> >> >> > > > >graphics
> >> >> > > > >> > tests
> >> >> > > > >> > from CCs and probably have CC-specific
exclude lists for
> >> >> > networking
> >> >> > > > >> tests
> >> >> > > > >> > (or fix all the known intermittent failures
right now :)
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> good idea - works for me.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> We need to drive into stability - we've made
amazing
> progress
> >> in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > >> last two months, and now we're down to the
really, really
> >> hard
> >> >> > stuff.
> >> >> > > > I
> >> >> > > > >> think that excluding them to get rock-solid
CC reporting is
> >> >> step 0,
> >> >> > > > >> and then step 1 is try and grind out the intermittent
> >> failures.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> geir
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --
> >> >> > > > Alexey A. Ivanov
> >> >> > > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
>

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