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 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:23:54 GMT
On 12/20/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest that we don't exclude more tests listed in 2438 -- it seems like
> any
> swiing test can fail


May be, but for last 10 days only these 4 swing tests sometimes reported
'failed' status.

Instead we may remove all swing tests from CC when run on J9 and try to fix
> the
> problem



The run of classlib tests over IBMVM on windows are skipped now (only
internal IBM system works) so we already hid this problem. Now we have only
net-tests to evaluate.
 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