harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Ivanov" <ivavladi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] aiming no regression
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:35:10 GMT
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