You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/10/31 16:43:47 UTC
[testing][concurrent] Should we exclude failing concurrent tests?
IIRC the concurrent tests have only recently been included in the
normal class library test suite, so the failures we are seeing are due
to missing functionality rather than regressions. If that's right,
should we exclude them in the short term and raise a JIRA to track the
issue?
According to the integrity testing page the classes with failures on
Windows are:
AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest
ThreadLocalTest
ReentrantLockTest
ExecutorsTest
ScheduledExecutorTest
and on Linux are:
ExecutorsTest
ThreadLocalTest
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [testing][concurrent] Should we exclude failing concurrent tests?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
Thanks Chunrong. I've just excluded them and put a note about
HARMONY-6001 in one of the files. We should get the classlib tests
passing now, at least on Windows 32.
2008/10/31 chunrong lai <ch...@gmail.com>:
> +1.
> In my experiments RI also has intermitent error for
> AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest, ReentrantLockTest ,
> ReentrantReadWriteLockTest .
> I also filed HARMONY-6001 for one reproducible Harmony error not happened in
> RI.
> Anyway I agree to exclude the tests.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Sian January
> <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> IIRC the concurrent tests have only recently been included in the
>> normal class library test suite, so the failures we are seeing are due
>> to missing functionality rather than regressions. If that's right,
>> should we exclude them in the short term and raise a JIRA to track the
>> issue?
>>
>> According to the integrity testing page the classes with failures on
>> Windows are:
>>
>> AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest
>> ThreadLocalTest
>> ReentrantLockTest
>> ExecutorsTest
>> ScheduledExecutorTest
>>
>> and on Linux are:
>>
>> ExecutorsTest
>> ThreadLocalTest
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [testing][concurrent] Should we exclude failing concurrent tests?
Posted by chunrong lai <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1.
In my experiments RI also has intermitent error for
AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest, ReentrantLockTest ,
ReentrantReadWriteLockTest .
I also filed HARMONY-6001 for one reproducible Harmony error not happened in
RI.
Anyway I agree to exclude the tests.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Sian January
<si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> IIRC the concurrent tests have only recently been included in the
> normal class library test suite, so the failures we are seeing are due
> to missing functionality rather than regressions. If that's right,
> should we exclude them in the short term and raise a JIRA to track the
> issue?
>
> According to the integrity testing page the classes with failures on
> Windows are:
>
> AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest
> ThreadLocalTest
> ReentrantLockTest
> ExecutorsTest
> ScheduledExecutorTest
>
> and on Linux are:
>
> ExecutorsTest
> ThreadLocalTest
>
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>