You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2005/08/24 19:58:49 UTC
platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Section 2.1 of trunk/java/testing/README.htm gives instructions for
running the Derby tests on
1) jdk1.3.1 or higher
2) J2ME/CDC/Foundation
Further on in the same webpage, section 4.9 lists "supported jvms" where
the tests have successfully run.
Is this accurate? More specifically, if we improve Derby's test
infrastructure, what platforms do we expect the new infrastructure to
support? What's good enough to start out with?
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Rajesh Kartha <ka...@Source-Zone.Org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Section 2.1 of trunk/java/testing/README.htm gives instructions for
> running the Derby tests on
>
> 1) jdk1.3.1 or higher
> 2) J2ME/CDC/Foundation
>
> Further on in the same webpage, section 4.9 lists "supported jvms"
> where the tests have successfully run.
>
> Is this accurate? More specifically, if we improve Derby's test
> infrastructure, what platforms do we expect the new infrastructure to
> support? What's good enough to start out with?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
Hi Rick
We run the Derby tests on a variety of platforms like:
- Windows 2000/2003/XP
- Linux flavours (SuSe Pro 9.2, SLES 9.0, RHEL (3.0 and 4.0), Fedora )
- Solaris 9,10
- AIX 5.x
- Apple OS X Server
- zOS v1R6 (zSeries)
- i5/OS (iSeries)
The current testing harness being Java provides the flexibility to run
on platforms with valid JVMs. Hence if there are plans to improve the
infrastructure,
I would expect it will continue to run on the above platforms.
In addition 64 bit Linux and Windows would also be desirable as
supported platforms
Regards,
Rajesh
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>.
On 8/25/05, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> This situation could potentially improve as we migrate tests into an
> assertion-based framework. It's an issue to keep in mind as we write
> assertions.
>
> This raises another interesting issue:
>
> o What is a reasonable minimum test barrier for committers to apply when
> approving a patch?
>
> Is it enough for the committer to say: "Derbyall runs cleanly under
> jdk1.4 on my machine." Should a scrupulous committer also run Derbyall
> on J2ME? At this point there are 8+ vms where people expect the tests to
> run. And there may be a couple dozen operating systems. Clearly we have
> to draw some line between the committer's responsibility and the
> responsibility of the platform users. What's the gold standard for
> committing patches?
>
> I'm a bit unclear on our process for arresting test drift across useful
> platforms. Can someone point me at a description of what we do today?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"KAH" == Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> > KAH> Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@sun.com> wrote:
> > KAH> [...]
> > >>> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
> > >>
> > >> Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
> > >>
> > >>> I am working on a patch
> > >>> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which
> also
> > >>> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
> > >>> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
> > >>> those platforms too?
> > >>
> > >> As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
> > >> modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
> > >> with the specific jvm)
> >
> > KAH> Thanks, Deepa! I'll download it and try to get the tests running.
> >
> >In my opinion, it seems to be requiring a bit much, if a developer is
> >expected to download special VMs in order to be able to modify a
> >general test. Would it not be better to do this in cooperation with
> >someone who regularly runs on this VM?
> >
>
Here is my 2 cents on it - falling nicely in with all the talk about itches
etc. :-) and based on *what I would do*.
If someone likes to support a certain jvm that is not 'standard', then it is
up to that person to ensure all possible canons are covered & run with that
jvm - *unless* the running of the test with another jvm actually exposes a
bug in derby.
I'd expect *everyone* to at *least* run with jdk1.4.2, and if there is a
likelyhood of a difference in behavior, jdk1.5 by Sun.
I'd expect a fix if someone running with another jvm actually exposes a bug
in derby.
I would expect someone who's updating a master file that has already canons
for other supported jvms to at least signal this to the list, and if
possible, modify that canon wih a manual effort (i.e. without running the
test with that jvm).
Finally, more high-level goal, we should accomodate support for other jvms
in the tests and harness themselves, and avoid the need for canons.
Does that sound reasonable?
Myrna
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
This situation could potentially improve as we migrate tests into an
assertion-based framework. It's an issue to keep in mind as we write
assertions.
This raises another interesting issue:
o What is a reasonable minimum test barrier for committers to apply when
approving a patch?
Is it enough for the committer to say: "Derbyall runs cleanly under
jdk1.4 on my machine." Should a scrupulous committer also run Derbyall
on J2ME? At this point there are 8+ vms where people expect the tests to
run. And there may be a couple dozen operating systems. Clearly we have
to draw some line between the committer's responsibility and the
responsibility of the platform users. What's the gold standard for
committing patches?
I'm a bit unclear on our process for arresting test drift across useful
platforms. Can someone point me at a description of what we do today?
Thanks,
-Rick
Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
>>>>>>"KAH" == Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> KAH> Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@sun.com> wrote:
> KAH> [...]
> >>> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
> >>
> >> Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
> >>
> >>> I am working on a patch
> >>> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
> >>> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
> >>> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
> >>> those platforms too?
> >>
> >> As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
> >> modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
> >> with the specific jvm)
>
> KAH> Thanks, Deepa! I'll download it and try to get the tests running.
>
>In my opinion, it seems to be requiring a bit much, if a developer is
>expected to download special VMs in order to be able to modify a
>general test. Would it not be better to do this in cooperation with
>someone who regularly runs on this VM?
>
>
>
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Øystein Grøvlen <Oy...@Sun.COM>.
>>>>> "KAH" == Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM> writes:
KAH> Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@sun.com> wrote:
KAH> [...]
>>> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
>>
>> Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
>>
>>> I am working on a patch
>>> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
>>> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
>>> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
>>> those platforms too?
>>
>> As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
>> modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
>> with the specific jvm)
KAH> Thanks, Deepa! I'll download it and try to get the tests running.
In my opinion, it seems to be requiring a bit much, if a developer is
expected to download special VMs in order to be able to modify a
general test. Would it not be better to do this in cooperation with
someone who regularly runs on this VM?
--
Øystein
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@sun.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
>
> Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
>
>> I am working on a patch
>> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
>> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
>> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
>> those platforms too?
>
> As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
> modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
> with the specific jvm)
Thanks, Deepa! I'll download it and try to get the tests running.
--
Knut Anders
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com>.
On 8/24/05, Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@sun.com> wrote:
> Deepa Remesh wrote:
>
> >I had submitted a patch for DERBY-398 to add instruction to run tests
> >on J2ME/CDC/Foundation. I missed adding the name of the jvm class
> >(j9_foundation) to the list of supported jvms in Section 4.9.
> >
> >Also I see another jvm class j9_22 (IBM's J9 jdk 1.3.1 subset - 2.2)
> >in the code but it is not in the list. Is this jvm supported?
> >
> >
> Is that jvm available for download somewhere?
Here is the link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/wireless/wctme_fam/
> I am working on a patch
> for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
> run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
> subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
> those platforms too?
As I understand, all the master(.out) files for a test need to be
modified. (unless for some reason, the test has been excluded to run
with the specific jvm)
>
> --
> Knut Anders
>
Deepa
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
Deepa Remesh wrote:
>I had submitted a patch for DERBY-398 to add instruction to run tests
>on J2ME/CDC/Foundation. I missed adding the name of the jvm class
>(j9_foundation) to the list of supported jvms in Section 4.9.
>
>Also I see another jvm class j9_22 (IBM's J9 jdk 1.3.1 subset - 2.2)
>in the code but it is not in the list. Is this jvm supported?
>
>
Is that jvm available for download somewhere? I am working on a patch
for DERBY-504 and DERBY-519, and I have to modify some tests which also
run under j9_13 and j9_22. At least, the tests have .out files in
subdirectories called j9_13 and j9_22. Should I update the tests for
those platforms too?
--
Knut Anders
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>.
On 8/24/05, Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Also I see another jvm class j9_22 (IBM's J9 jdk 1.3.1 subset - 2.2)
> in the code but it is not in the list. Is this jvm supported?
>
> I can use the same JIRA issue to add this information.
Hi Deepa,
yes, j9_22 is supported. I think the j9 related ones in the list should be:
j9_13 - WCTME jvm (available with IBM Websphere Studio Device Developer, 5.6),
version 2.1 - class j9_13
j9_22 - WCTME jvm (available with IBM Websphere Client Technology Micro
Edition, 5.7) version 2.2 - class j9_22
and then whatever seems appropriate for the j9_foundation class.
Myrna
Re: platforms where Derby unit tests must run
Posted by Deepa Remesh <dr...@gmail.com>.
I had submitted a patch for DERBY-398 to add instruction to run tests
on J2ME/CDC/Foundation. I missed adding the name of the jvm class
(j9_foundation) to the list of supported jvms in Section 4.9.
Also I see another jvm class j9_22 (IBM's J9 jdk 1.3.1 subset - 2.2)
in the code but it is not in the list. Is this jvm supported?
I can use the same JIRA issue to add this information.
Thanks,
Deepa
On 8/24/05, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
> Section 2.1 of trunk/java/testing/README.htm gives instructions for
> running the Derby tests on
>
> 1) jdk1.3.1 or higher
> 2) J2ME/CDC/Foundation
>
> Further on in the same webpage, section 4.9 lists "supported jvms" where
> the tests have successfully run.
>
> Is this accurate? More specifically, if we improve Derby's test
> infrastructure, what platforms do we expect the new infrastructure to
> support? What's good enough to start out with?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>