river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: ServiceDiscoveryManager test coverage
Date Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:21:10 GMT
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 8/22/2010 4:57 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2010 2:15 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2010 10:17 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Tomorrow, unless I get a better idea or someone posts one, I'll 
>>>>> start a
>>>>> binary search. The objective will be to find consecutive revisions N
>>>>> and
>>>>> N+1 such that N passes the servicediscovery tests and N+1 fails them.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I have preliminary results from the binary search. I can't narrow it
>>>> down to a single check-in because I cannot build revision 934802. The
>>>> indications are that revision 934258 is the last buildable revision 
>>>> that
>>>> passes and revision 935130 is the first buildable revision that fails.
>>>>
>>>> This is based on a single test,
>>>> com/sun/jini/test/impl/servicediscovery/event/NotifyEventDropProxyTaskRace.td,

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that I had previously found to be solidly failing on repeated runs on
>>>> the latest revision.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the process of running the full QA tests, servicediscovery
>>>> included, to see if the other failing tests behave the same way.
>>>
>>> Both sets of servicediscovery tests have completed, with zero failures
>>> for 934258 and ten failures for 935130, confirming that the entire set
>>> of servicediscovery failures in the head revision should be attributed
>>> to the changes between those two revisions.
>>>
>>> The failures seem to me to be too solidly reproducible, without any
>>> added delays, to be likely to be race conditions, even though that is
>>> what several of the failing tests were originally designed to
>>> demonstrate.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>>
>> Thanks Patricia, that's very helpful, I'll figure it out where I went
>> wrong this week, it really shows the importance of full test coverage.
>>
>> Much appreciated,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>
> Let me know if you find you are not going to have time to work on it. 
> Otherwise, I'll get back to my SDM and JoinManager concurrency 
> suspicions and related test construction.
>
> Patricia
>
>
Ok.

Mime
View raw message