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 14:50:46 GMT
BTW, Stepan,
I have prepared a patch for the stress test suite BTI adapter. The
patch delegates tool compilation from the adapter to the build file
(tools are needed for a stand-alone mode as well), and adds invoking
p-unit checkout target. Could you please look into it?

Thanks.

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5048


On 11/1/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel

Mime
View raw message