harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [buildtest] Are there obsolete fields in the test's description? (Was: Re: [bti][p-unit] finally, it is ready)
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:17:39 GMT
Stepan,
Ok, I will live with these warnings produced by the harness.

Thanks.




On 11/1/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On 10/30/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Stepan,
> >
> > You asked:
> > > What made them [fields] "obsolete"?
> >
> > Actually the thing I'm suggesting by my patch is to make these fields
> > "optional".
>
> This is not "true" - they are optional. It is possible to omit them in
> the test's description - the harness runs the test, only warning is
> printed. For example, if you omit 'testID' then exception is thrown
> and the test is not run.
>
> > I believe I may want to make Harmony becoming more
> > convenient for a test developer I am.
> >
> > The author field was made obsolete by Geir's decision to keep authors
> > outside of source code (remember removing Ivan Volosyuk from
> > interpreter sources?) This decision was discussed a bit, but there
> > were no strong arguments against.
> >
>
> IMO, 'authors' names in code source and 'authors' field in test's
> description are two different things. I wouldn't mix them. Yes, there
> is the agreement (OK to remove) about the first one and the second one
> hasn't been discussed before.
>
> > I don't see a reason of keeping date-of-creation attribute as a
> > mandatory field. The following argument is a bit stronger: this
> > argument is duplicated with another one and should be completely
> > removed. The first file modification is usually done at the Day of
> > Creation, and the current format allows several modification dates.
> >
>
> Again, I believe that if there is a reason to remove some feature then
> the removal should be entire and complete. We shouldn't remove only
> warnings and leave other debris of functionality in the harness.
>
> For example, currently the harness has the option to select tests for
> running based on authors name. If I want to run all tests created by
> you I should pass to the harness something like: "-execopt
> Selector:exclude:Author Fedotov". Also in this case a warning about
> tests that were not selected because of missing authors field is very
> helpful. And your patch removes it. The same for "creation-date".
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > BTW, to make this discussion a bit more interesting for techies, let
> > me add here a discussion of memory cleanup algorithm from our chat
> > with Andrew:
> >
> > Andrew: Does it make sense to invoke System.gc() multiple times to
> > release memory completely?
> >
> > me: I have the following assertion in my tests: allocated == finalized
> > and there is no other way to check that all objects are finalized than
> > to invoke gc and to check that amount of available memory no longer
> > increase (I also check that max chunk size stabilizes)
> >
> > Andrew: so to release memory completely, which approach is better? 1.
> > invoke gc multiple times; 2. gc, thread.sleep
> >
> > me: I believe I combine both:
> >  sleep does actual finalization work :-)
> >  gc() is for check
> >
>
> I'd like to add a couple of notes here: If you like to discuss stress
> tests details it is better to start new thread with corresponding
> topic. And before revealing private conversation details please make
> sure to get consent from all parties involved.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> <SNIP>
>


-- 
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel

Mime
View raw message