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 Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:24:31 GMT
Thanks Patricia,

I can update the qa.logging file temporarily later, I'm working on an 
earlier build at them moment though.

I'm making some progress, with the incremental changes. I'm updating 
small sections of code, followed by clean builds and test, runs, it's 
taking some time.

This could be a particularly tricky bug to nail down.

Regards,

Peter.

Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Unfortunately, it turns out my failure is not the same as the Hudson 
> failure, so I have no way of making progress without more data.
>
> Is it possible to get logs from Hudson runs? Can somebody with Hudson 
> access collect more data?
>
> Patricia
>
>
> On 8/30/2010 3:24 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> The com/sun/jini/test/spec/lookupdiscovery/MulticastMonitorAllChange.td
>> failure reproduces in my VirtualBox/Ubuntu environment. I checked out
>> the latest revision, and get 10 failures on 10 tries.
>>
>> Is there any information you would like me to collect and report from
>> it, always assuming data collection does not make the failure go away?
>>
>> I'm also running a servicediscovery test in another VirtualBox. I'll
>> report results when that finishes.
>>
>> Patricia
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/2010 1:28 PM, Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>> Im not able to reproduce the
>>> com/sun/jini/test/spec/lookupdiscovery/MulticastMonitorAllChange.td
>>> failure
>>> either on my machine ...
>>> I just started a new build on Hudson. Hopefully it can reproduced
>>> there ...
>>>
>>> 2010/8/30 Jonathan Costers<jonathan.costers@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>>> Did you try to run the servicediscovery category? I now get 15 test
>>>> failures consistently ... see attached report.
>>>>
>>>> 2010/8/30 Peter Firmstone<jini@zeus.net.au>
>>>>
>>>> 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