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: test excludes (was [proposal] For future milestones, expect zero test failures)
Date Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:30:14 GMT
I wonder why the very clear thing like "zero test failures" always ends up
with test architecture discussion. :-)


--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://www.telecom-express.ru/
http://harmony.apache.org/
http://dataved.ru/ http://klsh.ru/



On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Mark Hindess
> <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In message <201005250742.o4P7g1wt019461@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
> > Mark Hindess writes:
> >>
> >> In message <
> AANLkTikh3nV56QB8HXSXfzLnI9jrtU-C2cRF1shElZVt@mail.gmail.com>,
> >> Nathan Beyer writes:
> >> >
> >> > For future milestone votes, I'd like to propose that we set the
> >> > expectation of zero test failures. Every time we do a milestone and I
> >> > run the build and tests I find myself looking at the test failures
> >> > (there are ALWAYS failures) and ask 'are these expected'? If the
> >> > failures are expected, they should be excluded and the tests should
> >> > just pass.
> >> >
> >> > If this proposal is workable, immediately after this upcoming release,
> >> > all 'expected' failures will be pulled into the exclusion lists.
> >>
> >> I was thinking this too.  The problem for me is that:
> >>
> >> 1) Our test coverage isn't brilliant so we need a way to exclude
> >> individual tests not the tests for a whole class.  We have too many
> >> excluded tests already[0].
> >>
> >> 2) The JDWP test framework seems to pass most of the time on the 5.0
> >> code base but seems to fail quite often on the 6.0 branch.  I normally
> >> resort to doing 10 test runs and comparing the results of all runs. I
> >> typically see every test pass on at least one run.  This leads me to
> >> believe that the improved jdwp in the 6.0 branch is merely exposing race
> >> conditions in the test framework.  It would be great to fix the test
> >> framework so that these are avoided.  If we tried to exclude tests that
> >> fail regularly on java6 jdwp we would probably end up removing most of
> >> the tests. ;-(
> >>
> >> I think solving 1 is really a pre-requisite to moving forward with your
> >> (excellent) goal.  We should make that a priority after this release.  I
> >> don't care if the solution is something fancy with junit 4 annotations
> >> or something simple like adding:
> >>
> >>   if (Support_Excludes.isExcluded()) {
> >>     return;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> to problematic tests where the support class just looks up the
> >> class/method name of the caller in the exclude lists.  (I actually
> >> quite like the idea of doing the exclude list processing lazily at
> >> run time rather than generating the list with ant.)
> >
> > Last night I decided to try to implement this simple exclude list
> > mechanism in my build-improvement branch.  I've checked in my changes at
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/java/branches/mrh@948377
>
> I don't want to be rude, but ... I brought this up a few months back
> and the response I got was less than overwhelming. I stopped my work.
> How is this different?
>
> http://harmony.markmail.org/message/4rhomwqjdr5uklln?q=junit+annotation
>
> >
> > I've automatically added isExcluded() checks to all the test methods
> > in previously excluded tests (though this was automated and more
> > complicated than you might think, and definitely not 100% accurate
> > but should be close enough).  The next job would be to remove/move
> > the isExcluded() checks to be as fine-grained as possible so as just
> > to exclude the failing tests (or individual asserts).  As I commented
> > previously many of the excludes probably just need to be removed
> > completely.
> >
> > New excludes can be added as before by adding tests names to the lists
> > but you also need to add an appropriate isExcluded()-if check to the
> > test code as well.  Hopefully this will maximize coverage will still
> > allowing us to have only passing tests running by default.
> >
> > If different exclude conditions apply to different platforms you can
> > use:
> >
> >  package.class#methodname
> >  package.class+arbitrary_tag
> >  package.class#methodname+arbitrary_tag
> >  arbitrary_tag
> >
> > to exclude tests - though I'd avoid the final one unless it is something
> > really broad like a VM not supporting concurrent (like the IBM v4 VMEs).
> >
> > To see what is happening, you can run the tests with:
> >
> >  -Dhy.test.vmargs=-Dhy.excludes.verbose=true
> >
> > (though this is too verbose I might make the load method less verbose
> > or use a hy.excludes.debug=true flag for that output).
> >
> > To ignore excludes and run all tests use:
> >
> >  -Dhy.test.vmargs=-Dhy.excludes.ignore=true
> >
> > Rather than using test-jre-vm-info in ant the vm name for the exclude
> > file selection is a trivial guess based on system properties. If you
> > are using a custom vm and exclude lists then you can use:
> >
> >  -Dhy.test.vmargs=-Dhy.excludes.vm=myvm
> >
> > to set it explicitly.
> >
> > I'm tempted to do away with the isExcluded() checks/lists are replace
> > them with more readable:
> >
> >  if (Support_Excludes.isRI()) {
> >
> > or:
> >
> >  if (Support_Excludes.isLinux() && Support_Excludes.is64bit()) {
> >
> > etc.  To make the Excludes more self-contained but that requires
> > looking at the excluded tests in more detail to understand the
> > requirements better and as I said I wanted to make this a simple
> > step from what we had today.
> >
> > I'd like to merge this to trunk/java6 after the code freeze but I'd
> > like some feedback first.  I don't necessarily see this as a final
> > solution but I just wanted to do something since this topic has been
> > discussed for far to long and I wanted something that we could move to
> > from where we are today without to much effort.  On the other hand,
> > I'm not convinced that annotations are a good solution either since
> > they don't give you fine-grained control so every distinction has to be
> > represented by a separate method.
> >
> > Comments very welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Mark.
> >
> >
> >
>

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