river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Wonderly <gr...@wonderly.org>
Subject Re: Bug fixing
Date Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:13:13 GMT
Do we need to look at VirtualBox, or some other VM that we can boot onto the 
servers and dispatch multiple machines onto so that we can create the type of 
test scenarios that make sense in these situations?

Gregg Wonderly

On 10/21/2010 4:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> To me, the idea of something as much concerned with remote activity as a Jini
> implementation not having a single QA test that uses more than one computer
> seems implausible and a bit alarming. A developer loading up enough services on
> his workstation for it to play the other computer in some remote tests seems
> quite plausible.
>
> On the other hand, I have not looked at all at the tests in question, so they
> may indeed be tests that *must* run single system and just mention "resendes"
> for historical reasons. In that case, I'll put creating some multi-computer
> tests, and finding a way of running them, on my to-do list, unless there is a
> really convincing argument that River cannot possibly have a remote-only bug.
>
> Patricia
>
>
> On 10/21/2010 11:43 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> Resendes was one of the original Sun, Jini developers, so the use of
>> his computer would indicate something that he worked on creating I'd
>> guess.
>>
>> Gregg Wonderly
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>>> If we can get these cleared up, I believe we have a solid test
>>>> base in place to start validating some new developments and
>>>> experiments.
>>>
>>> I have a few remaining test-related concerns:
>>>
>>> 1. Tests with multiple computers. This may be what "resendes" is
>>> about. Surely many Apache projects need this for testing, so the
>>> infrastructure should have some way of applying multiple virtual
>>> computers for a single test.
>>>
>>> 2. Skipped tests. The category suppression suggests to me that
>>> River, or maybe Jini before it, went through a phase in which the
>>> developers took a "shoot the messenger" approach to test failures.
>>> If so, some of the skipped tests could be valid tests that, if run,
>>> would tell us something we need to hear. Once I've done with
>>> failures that are preventing whole categories from running, I want
>>> to review the skipped tests to make sure each skip is commented
>>> with a better reason than the test failing.
>>>
>>> 3. Lack of effective testing of concurrency and retry behavior in
>>> JoinManager and ServiceDiscoveryManager. I did start looking at
>>> building a mock environment around SDM for the purpose of forcing
>>> high traffic and difficult combinations of actions. Once we have
>>> all the existing tests running, I'm going to take another look at
>>> how effectively these difficult and important classes are being
>>> tested.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message