harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Elena Semukhina" <elena.semukh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] aiming no regression
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:18:45 GMT
Please don't forget that we have some intermittent failures of smoke tests.
Although CC does not detect them for 3 days yet, I still suggest that they
are excluded. I ran them intensively and saw their hangs on JIT.
A relatively new issue is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2813and Evgueni takes
care of it . Other two tests have not been investigated
yet.

Anyway, I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2838 to exclude those tests on
JIT.

Thanks,
Elena

On 12/21/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/12/20, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> I'm +1 for special exclude lists for CC:
>
> if we exclude something in regular x-list, we lose that tests for some
> time,
> but when we exclude intermittent failures in CC we still can use the tests
> to check for stable failures.
>
> Example: seems like currently each swing test can intermittently fail
> for some reason. We can exclude all swing tests from CC to have
> reliable CC reports. But
> if we exclude them from pre-commit testing we won't be able to test
> any commit to swing.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Elena

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