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 Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:54:00 GMT
On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:

> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > 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
>
> +1
>
> geir


 Actually, the 'swing' tests sometimes intermittently failed on the DRLVM
too (for example, I was able to reproduce vm crash for test discusssed at
Jan15 in topic '[classlib] new tests crashes':
<snip>
    [junit] free(): invalid pointer 0x9db42d8!
    [junit] free(): invalid pointer 0x9db72d0!
    [junit] SIGSEGV in VM code.
    [junit] Stack trace:
    [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Time elapsed: 0 sec
    [junit] Tests FAILED (timeout)
...
/export/users/viv/trunk/cc/projects/classlib/trunk/make/build-test.xml:133:
There were test crashes:
/export/users/viv/trunk/cc/projects/classlib/trunk/build/test_report/TEST-
javax.swing.LayoutFocusTraversalPolicyTest.xml



The question is: should we exclude swing tests from the cruise control
totally (while undefined problem into swing will be fixed) or continue to
add tests one-by-one to the exclude list?

Note, when these test were excluded (thanks to Mark!) no new intermittently
failed test were detected in the swing for 3 days.


 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