river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Bug fixing
Date Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:08:16 GMT
Hi Patricia
Great work again.
I'm going to look into creating a separate Hudson build to run only on
Solaris nodes today. Likewise, we'll have another one running on Ubuntu
nodes only.
The former should fail consistently, the latter should pass consistently.
On first sight, the issue on Solaris seems to have to do with multicasting
somehow, but haven't been able to spend much time to investigate.

2010/10/31 Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>

> I've found a bug fix to com.sun.jini.mahalo.TxnManagerImpl that makes the
> entire javaspace category pass. I've started a full QA run with the fix, but
> that will take about a day. If anything fails as a result of the
> TxnManagerImpl change I'll have to debug that, but until I get a failure
> there is nothing more to do on javaspace.
> There is arguably a problem in the txnmanager test category because it did
> not detect the bug. Maybe I should add the txnmanager category to a couple
> of the javaspace tests that use transactions.
> Time pick my next bug hunt - I can start something else while the QA test
> is running. Any opinions?
> I could take a look at some of the skipped tests to see why they are
> skipped. Maybe some of them would tell us about real bugs if we ran them.
> There is also the Solaris-only bug. I can build a Solaris VirtualBox and see
> if it reproduces. If not, I may need to learn how to run things on a Hudson
> Solaris in order to investigate.
> Patricia
> On 10/20/2010 1:44 PM, Jonathan Costers wrote:
>> Great job Patricia!
>> My vote would go to the "javaspace" test category.
>> Last time I ran that one (250 or so tests IIRC) I got 16 failures.
>> 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.
>> Looks like we are really getting some momentum here, I like it a lot.
>> Thanks to all for your hard work.
>> Jonathan
>> 2010/10/20 Patricia Shanahan<pats@acm.org>
>>  On 10/19/2010 4:08 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>  I propose modifying TxnManagerImpl to make it match the interface
>>>> declaration, and allow an abort to be retried. This may break other
>>>> tests, if they are assuming the behavior that TxnManagerImpl
>>>> implemented.
>>> I'm doing a full QA test, including txnmanager. Although the test is
>>> still
>>> running, all of the txnmanager tests, including GetStateTest, have
>>> passed.
>>> Those tests are the most likely to notice the change.
>>> If the rest of the QA test is clean when it finishes, I'll check in the
>>> fix
>>> and we can add txnmanager to the default category list.
>>> Any votes on my next bug hunt? For example, are there bug reports in Jira
>>> that really need to be fixed before the next release?
>>> Patricia

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message