lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SolrInfoMBeanTest
Date Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:59:41 GMT
I will sheepishly step up and say... um, i wrote that....  a long while ago.

At the time some of the MInfoBeans returned null, and the we had tests
that covered most things except these getter.  This test (at the time)
made many of the simple classes have 100% coverage and had no side
effects.

I don't get why calling Class.forName( xxxxx ) would cause something
to later fail, but I have not objection to disabling the not very
useful test

ryan



On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Haha, maybe we found the "func" issue :-) Really bad test, why does it need
> to instantiate. Does loading and inspecting the class is not enough? Or does
> it init static props?
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: yseeley@gmail.com [mailto:yseeley@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
>> Seeley
>> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 9:35 PM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: SolrInfoMBeanTest
>>
>> Ha - going through and instantiating a ton of random classes does sound
> like a
>> good way to screw things up!
>>
>> +1 to disable.
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Can we disable this test? I don't understand the purpose of it, and it
>> > seems to only cause other tests to fail.
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> >    [junit] NOTE: all tests run in this JVM:
>> >    [junit] [SolrInfoMBeanTest, TestGroupingSearch]
>> >    [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>> >    [junit] TEST org.apache.solr.TestGroupingSearch FAILED
>> >
>> > i already had to hack this test once to prevent TestReplicationHandler
>> > from always failing:
>> >
>> >            // FIXME: Find the static/sysprop/file leakage here.
>> >            // If we call Class.forName(ReplicationHandler) here, its
>> > test will later fail
>> >            // when run inside the same JVM (-Dtests.threadspercpu=0),
>> > so something is wrong.
>> >            if (file.contains("ReplicationHandler"))
>> >              continue;
>> >
>> > the test seems really silly, it loads up everything in its classpath
>> > and assertNotNull's against toString-type things, with the description
>> > of "A simple test used to increase code coverage for some standard
>> > things..."
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
>> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
>> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message