harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] aiming no regression
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:55:18 GMT
I suggest that we don't exclude more tests listed in 2438 -- it seems like any
swiing test can fail

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

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
View raw message