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: Next steps after 2.2.1 release
Date Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:45:08 GMT

You need to spend some more time figuring out why those tests are 
failing, that isn't normal, when 280 tests fail, there's usually 
something wrong with configuration.  The qa test suite just isn't that 
brittle ;)   The tests that fail due to concurrency errors don't fail 
often, we're talking 3/10 you might get a failure (if you're lucky) and 
likely, you won't see any failures on single core hardware.  The Jenkins 
tests tend to be more likely to fail because they run concurrent with 
other builds, in a busy network environment (sockets in use etc), with 
lots of superfluous discovery processes going in the background.

If you need some help with the source tree, I'm quite familiar with it, 
don't be afraid to ask questions.

This is a big distribution, there is a lot of code, it is initially 
difficult to find your way around, but patience will be rewarded.

There are 3 test suites:

1. trunk/test
2. trunk/qa/src
3. trunk/qa/jtreg

The first is the junit test suite, the second is the qa integration test 
suite and tck, which simulates a network environment with all the 
services, the last is the jtreg regression test suite.

When you've done further investigation and better understand the code, 
then we'll be in a better position for discussion, right now the 
immediate focus should be on a 2.2.1 release.

I'll switch to your branch and run the tests if you like.

I'd also like to encourage you to look at the code in 
skunk/qa-refactoring, it's well documented and should be easy to read, 
I've followed Kent Beck's recommendations for code readability.

I hope this helps.



Greg Trasuk wrote:
> OK, so in my last message I talked about how (speaking only for myself) I'm a little
nervous about the state of the trunk.
> So what now?  
> Problems we need to avoid in this discussion:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> - Conflation of source tree structure issues with build tool selection.
> - Conflation of Maven build, Maven as codebase provider (artifact urls), and posting
artifacts to Maven Central
> - Wish lists of pet features
> - Bruised egos and personal criticisms.
> Issues I see, in no particular order:
> ----------------------------------------------
> - We've done changes both to the test framework and the code, and lots of them.  We should
do one or the other, or small amounts of coevolution, if absolutely necessary.
> - Really, I'd like to see a completely separate integration test, and have the TCK tests
separated out again.
> - The source tree is incomprehensible
> - The tests appear to be awfully sensitive to their environment.  Insofar as when I run
them locally on an untouched source tree, I get 280 failures.
> - There have been changes to class loading and security subsystems.  These subsystems
are core to Jini, and the changes were made to the existing source, so there's no way to "opt-out"
of the changes.  I'd like to see radical changes be optional until proven in the field, where
possible.  In the case of policy providers and class loaders, that should be easy to do.
> - Similarly, it seems there have been some changes to the JERI framework.
> - There are ".jar" files in our repository.  I'll stipulate that the licensing has been
checked, but it smells bad.
> Discussion
> -----------------
> I guess the biggest thing I'd like to see is stability in the test framework.  Perhaps
it needs refactoring or reorganization, but if so, we need to be very careful to separate
it from changes to the core functionality.
> Next, I'd like for it to be easier to comprehend the source tree.  I think a good way
to do that is to separate out (carefully) the core Jini package (basically the contents of
jsk-platform.jar) and the service implementations.  There's no reason that we have to have
one huge everything-but-the-kitchen-sink distribution.  That's just a holdover from how Sun
structured the JTSK - It was literally a "starter kit".  To me it would be fine to have separate
deliverables for the platform and the services.
> While we're separating out the services, it might also be a decent time to implement
Maven-based builds if we think that's a good idea.  I'd start with Reggie.  It would also
be a good time to get rid of the "com.sun.jini" packages.
> Aside:  I'm personally ambivalent on Maven (which is to say I'm nowhere near as negative
on it as I once was).  I do agree with Dennis, though, that the jars and appropriate poms
need to be published to Maven Central.  There's no doubt that users will appreciate that.
> Once we have a stable set of regression tests, then OK, we could think about improving
performance or using Maven repositories as the codebase server.
> I realize this won't be popular, but my gut feel is that we need to step back to the
2.2 branch and retrace our steps a little, and go through the evolution again in a more measured
> Proposal
> ------------
> 1 - Release version 2.2.1 from the 2.2 branch.
> 2 - Create a separate source tree for the test framework.  This could come from the "qa_refactor"
branch, but the goal should be to successfully test the 2.2.1 release.  Plus it should be
a no-brainer to pull it down and run it on a local machine.
> 3 - Release 2.2.2 from the pruned jtsk tree.  Release 1.0.0 of the test framework.
> 4 - Pull out the infrastructure service implementations (Reggie, Outrigger, Norm, etc)
from the core into separate products.  Release 1.0.0 on each of them.  Release 2.2.3 from
the pruned jtsk tree.
> 5 - Adopt a fixed release cycle.  Not sure if it should be quarterly or biennial, or
whether it should be all products at once or staggered releases.  We'll need to discuss.
> 6 - Then we can start making changes if necessary to the individual products.  And also
try to deal with making it easier for new users to use the technology.
> So there you go.  Opinions?
> Greg Trasuk.

View raw message