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: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-QA #3
Date Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:09:47 GMT
I've noticed that among the tests there are inconsistencies related to 
RemoteEvent's, sometimes more events than expected are recieved 
(multiple of two) and other time no event is received when expected.  
I'll post some detailed test results later today.

Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Are there any details, I can't seem to replicate it?
>
> As I get time this week, it might take a little longer, but I'll be 
> working from a known stable state, slowly adding the changes, until I 
> discover the failure.
>
> The issue seems to be Event based, as are the other issues that are 
> occurring.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
>
>     [java] -----------------------------------------
>     [java]
>     [java] # of tests started   = 497
>     [java] # of tests completed = 497
>     [java] # of tests skipped   = 22
>     [java] # of tests passed    = 497
>     [java] # of tests failed    = 0
>     [java]
>     [java] -----------------------------------------
>     [java]
>     [java]    Date finished:
>     [java]       Tue Aug 31 03:38:24 EST 2010
>     [java]    Time elapsed:
>     [java]       15780 seconds
>     [java]
>
> BUILD SUCCESSFUL
> Total time: 291 minutes 59 seconds
>
>
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>> OK, this one is ligitimate ...
>>>
>>> The changes that were committed yesterday apparently cause a single 
>>> QA test
>>> to fail:
>>>
>>> [java] com/sun/jini/test/spec/
>>> lookupdiscovery/MulticastMonitorAllChange.td
>>>     [java] Test Failed: Test Failed: 
>>> com.sun.jini.qa.harness.TestException:
>>> change failed -- waited 870 seconds (14 minutes) -- 3 change event(s)
>>> expected, 0 change event(s) received
>>>
>>> Note that this QA run did not include "servicediscovery" nor any 
>>> other new
>>> test categories.
>>> The same tests were run as were run when the QA run (build #1) passed
>>> yesterday.
>>>
>>> Any chance this can get some more attention?
>>> IMHO, getting this fixed is our top priority right now.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the priority within River, but I am spending the next 
>> few hours on something even higher priority - going ceramic painting 
>> with a friend. I'll check the mailing list when I get back. If 
>> nothing else happens, I'll look into it this afternoon or evening.
>>
>> If you have time, could you check whether it is a solid failure or 
>> intermittent?
>>
>> Patricia
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message