You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/16 00:08:03 UTC
[drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Folks,
According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit tests
pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great team we
are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep inspiration. Kudos
to you for the following (and not limited to this):
* Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
* Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
* Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
* Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and committing
related class library patches
* Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
resolution guidelines
* Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues * Ilya Okomin,
Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for fixing class library
and tests
* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for
making execution engines work
* Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
* Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
* Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
* Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
* Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing and
trying DRLVM patches
* Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
* Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
* My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
special configurations, so the page
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains active. But
this shouldn't prevent us from including class library testing into Harmony
"zero regression" policy. What do you think?
--
Thank you,
Alexei
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Folks,
> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
> tests
> pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great team we
> are.
>
Awesome!
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Folks,
> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit tests
> pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great team we
> are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep inspiration.
<standing applause/>
--
Stefano.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Folks,
> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit tests
> pass on DRLVM.
Yay!
>
> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
> special configurations, so the page
> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains active.
> But
> this shouldn't prevent us from including class library testing into Harmony
> "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>
+1
geir
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Good work everyone!
While we may tend to be enticed by the API completeness numbers, it is
qualities such as compatibility, stability, and performance that we will
ultimately be measured upon and thanked for. It's encouraging to see
the team taking all these things so seriously.
Regards,
Tim
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Folks,
> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit tests
> pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great team we
> are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep inspiration. Kudos
> to you for the following (and not limited to this):
>
> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
> committing
> related class library patches
> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
> resolution guidelines
> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues * Ilya Okomin,
> Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for fixing class library
> and tests
> * Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk
> for
> making execution engines work
> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing and
> trying DRLVM patches
> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
>
> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
> special configurations, so the page
> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains active.
> But
> this shouldn't prevent us from including class library testing into Harmony
> "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Well let's see how often we will break CI systems. If we break
> it twice a day then pre-commit testing needs to be strengthened.
Right. Exactly. Iterate and adapt.
>
> BTW if compile in release mode then all classlib tests run 35 minutes
> on DRLVM. Once we fix DRLVM to run with the fork mode "once"
> it will be even faster...
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > why not?
>>
>> Because the full-stack testing is appropriate for CI systems that are
>> running full-time to catch bugs. That's what our build-test
>> infrastructure is all about.
>>
>> Asking DRLVM developers (and conversely, classlib developers) to run 1+
>> hours of tests for even the smallest commits is a waste of time. We
>> simply need to balance efficiency (targeted testing when you make a fix)
>> with the dedication to have a rapid response when the CI systems find a
>> problem.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
>> >> > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community
>> effort, with
>> >> >> everyone pitching in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We
>> still need
>> >> >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our
>> classlibrary),
>> >> >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI
>> >> testing
>> >> >> framework.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
>> >> > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the
>> >> "test"
>> >> > target of DRLVM build.
>> >> > What do people think?
>> >>
>> >> Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
>> >>
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Pavel
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> geir
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>> >> >> > Oops, I've missed:
>> >> >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
>> >> >> discussions
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Folks,
>> >> >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library
>> >> unit
>> >> >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the
>> great
>> >> >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
>> >> >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to
>> >> this):
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
>> >> >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
>> >> >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM
>> >> patches
>> >> >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking
>> and
>> >> >> >> committing related class library patches
>> >> >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA
>> >> issue
>> >> >> >> resolution guidelines
>> >> >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
>> >> >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey
>> >> Ivanov for
>> >> >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov,
>> Nikolay
>> >> >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines
>> >> work
>> >> >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
>> >> >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption
>> handling and
>> >> >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
>> >> >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
>> >> >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
>> >> >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems,
>> reviewing
>> >> >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
>> >> >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
>> >> >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
>> >> >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless
>> >> nights
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and
>> >> other
>> >> >> >> special configurations, so the page
>> >> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
>> >> >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class
>> library
>> >> >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you
>> think?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Thank you,
>> >> >> >> Alexei
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Well let's see how often we will break CI systems. If we break
it twice a day then pre-commit testing needs to be strengthened.
BTW if compile in release mode then all classlib tests run 35 minutes
on DRLVM. Once we fix DRLVM to run with the fork mode "once"
it will be even faster...
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > why not?
>
> Because the full-stack testing is appropriate for CI systems that are
> running full-time to catch bugs. That's what our build-test
> infrastructure is all about.
>
> Asking DRLVM developers (and conversely, classlib developers) to run 1+
> hours of tests for even the smallest commits is a waste of time. We
> simply need to balance efficiency (targeted testing when you make a fix)
> with the dedication to have a rapid response when the CI systems find a
> problem.
>
> geir
>
>
> >
> > 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> >> > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
> >> >> everyone pitching in.
> >> >>
> >> >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
> >> >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
> >> >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI
> >> testing
> >> >> framework.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
> >> > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the
> >> "test"
> >> > target of DRLVM build.
> >> > What do people think?
> >>
> >> Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Pavel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> geir
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> >> >> > Oops, I've missed:
> >> >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
> >> >> discussions
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Folks,
> >> >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library
> >> unit
> >> >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
> >> >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
> >> >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to
> >> this):
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> >> >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> >> >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM
> >> patches
> >> >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
> >> >> >> committing related class library patches
> >> >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA
> >> issue
> >> >> >> resolution guidelines
> >> >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> >> >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey
> >> Ivanov for
> >> >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
> >> >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines
> >> work
> >> >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> >> >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
> >> >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> >> >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> >> >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> >> >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
> >> >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
> >> >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> >> >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> >> >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless
> >> nights
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and
> >> other
> >> >> >> special configurations, so the page
> >> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
> >> >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
> >> >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Thank you,
> >> >> >> Alexei
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> why not?
Because the full-stack testing is appropriate for CI systems that are
running full-time to catch bugs. That's what our build-test
infrastructure is all about.
Asking DRLVM developers (and conversely, classlib developers) to run 1+
hours of tests for even the smallest commits is a waste of time. We
simply need to balance efficiency (targeted testing when you make a fix)
with the dedication to have a rapid response when the CI systems find a
problem.
geir
>
> 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>
>>
>> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
>> > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
>> >> everyone pitching in.
>> >>
>> >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
>> >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
>> >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI
>> testing
>> >> framework.
>> >
>> >
>> > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
>> > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the
>> "test"
>> > target of DRLVM build.
>> > What do people think?
>>
>> Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
>>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Pavel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>> >> > Oops, I've missed:
>> >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
>> >> discussions
>> >> >
>> >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Folks,
>> >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library
>> unit
>> >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
>> >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
>> >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to
>> this):
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
>> >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
>> >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM
>> patches
>> >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
>> >> >> committing related class library patches
>> >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA
>> issue
>> >> >> resolution guidelines
>> >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
>> >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey
>> Ivanov for
>> >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
>> >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines
>> work
>> >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
>> >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
>> >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
>> >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
>> >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
>> >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
>> >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
>> >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
>> >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
>> >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless
>> nights
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and
>> other
>> >> >> special configurations, so the page
>> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
>> >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
>> >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Thank you,
>> >> >> Alexei
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
>> We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
>> classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
>> impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether
>> your
>> test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
>>
>> I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
>> JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
>> criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
>> came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
>> and JIT.
>>
>> To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
>> solutions:
>>
>> 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
>> version from time to time.
>> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
>> + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
>> Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
>> - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
>> - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
>> when we want to update the version for classlib testing
>>
>> 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
>> regressions
>> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
>> + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
>> Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
>> rollback)
>> - It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
>> - Rollbacks are costly
>>
>> 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
>> Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
>> + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
>> Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
>> take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
>>
>> I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
>> I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
>> and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
>
> While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
> unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
> As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
> commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
> that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
> back out a patch and re-evaluate.
>
> With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
> different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
> any individual could be expected to provide.
>
> Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
> relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
> commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
Agreed, "commit then review" scales better.
There is no way a single developer running tests on her/his own machines
can know if it's safe to commit a patch... we are not making a release
for every commit!
I'm not suggesting people get sloppy in committing stuff, but I'm
suggesting to be less anal about pre-emptive reviewing and let the
testing infrastructure (or our users!) tell you what's wrong.
We currently support two OSs (with various versions of distributions,
libraries and compilers!) and three CPU architectures, but this is very
much likely to grow in the future. And permutations grow quadratically,
not linearly!
There will be a time in the future when potentially hundreds of machines
will run a head-less 'building' cruisecontrol (or equivalent) system
that will dump results in real time into a common repository (at
harmonytest.org probably) and such repository will perform analysis of
the results and find who to blame and send an email to the person with
the problem and copying the dev mail list.
A developers commit could run the tests fine on their platform and break
every other one... their own testing would have been completely useless
anyway.
--
Stefano.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
>> And I hope we will have other workloads running on Harmony nightly and
>> reporting regressions to the list.
>
> Speaking of which, is there a J9 for x86_64 available?
Nope, we have not put a Harmony VME up on Developerworks for x86_64.
And predicting your next question, yes it would be possible, but it's
not an overnight process ;-/
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> And I hope we will have other workloads running on Harmony nightly and
> reporting regressions to the list.
Speaking of which, is there a J9 for x86_64 available?
If so, I could start getting a more complete testing scenario on the
server that runs gump
--
Stefano.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
16 Nov 2006 17:15:14 +0600, Egor Pasko <eg...@gmail.com>:
> On the 0x223 day of Apache Harmony Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > 2006/11/16, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > > Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > > > We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
> > > > classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
> > > > impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether
> > > > your
> > > > test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
> > > >
> > > > I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
> > > > JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
> > > > criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
> > > > came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
> > > > and JIT.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
> > > > solutions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
> > > > version from time to time.
> > > > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > > > + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
> > > > Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
> > > > - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
> > > > - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
> > > > when we want to update the version for classlib testing
> > > >
> > > > 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
> > > > regressions
> > > > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > > > + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
> > > > Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
> > > > rollback)
> > > > - It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
> > > > - Rollbacks are costly
> > > >
> > > > 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
> > > > Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
> > > > + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
> > > > Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
> > > > take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
> > > >
> > > > I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
> > > > I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
> > > > and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
> > >
> > > While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
> > > unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
> > > As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
> > > commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
> > > that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
> > > back out a patch and re-evaluate.
> > >
> > > With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
> > > different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
> > > any individual could be expected to provide.
> >
> > > Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
> > > relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
> > > commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
> >
> > I can't say it better. Thank you Tim :)
> > Maybe just to reinforce:
> > 1) We have absolutely stable model VM for classlib verification - j9
> > it's name. Therefore I really don't think DRLVM can affect classlib's
> > progress disruptively.
> > 2) Yes, there are times when some component advances in leaps as
> > against accustomed smooth evolution. I do believe we'll be able to
> > manage such cases individually, w/o overburdening everyday activities.
>
> I am for (2) too.
+1
And I hope we will have other workloads running on Harmony nightly and
reporting
regressions to the list.
But a small correction: rollback is not always
> reasonable. We can explicitly agree if we do rollback or fix ASAP (as
> we did with TM and launcher).
+1
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
> I do not like (1) because interfaces are evolving. And I am not
> feeling like this process would stop in a short time. (3) is just too
> long to run as pre-commit, IMHO.
>
> Though, we might select some most bug-catching tests from HUT to run
> as pre-commit. I have nothing concrete to suggest now. We might return
> to this idea in future, when we have a longer history.
>
> --
> Egor Pasko
>
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Egor Pasko wrote:
> I am for (2) too. But a small correction: rollback is not always
> reasonable. We can explicitly agree if we do rollback or fix ASAP (as
> we did with TM and launcher).
Of course, thank you -- it is always better to fix it and move forward
when that can be done quickly rather than be required to back code out.
That is how we have been working to date and it is working well.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Egor Pasko <eg...@gmail.com>.
On the 0x223 day of Apache Harmony Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> 2006/11/16, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > > We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
> > > classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
> > > impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether
> > > your
> > > test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
> > >
> > > I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
> > > JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
> > > criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
> > > came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
> > > and JIT.
> > >
> > > To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
> > > solutions:
> > >
> > > 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
> > > version from time to time.
> > > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > > + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
> > > Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
> > > - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
> > > - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
> > > when we want to update the version for classlib testing
> > >
> > > 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
> > > regressions
> > > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > > + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
> > > Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
> > > rollback)
> > > - It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
> > > - Rollbacks are costly
> > >
> > > 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
> > > Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
> > > + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
> > > Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
> > > take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
> > >
> > > I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
> > > I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
> > > and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
> >
> > While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
> > unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
> > As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
> > commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
> > that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
> > back out a patch and re-evaluate.
> >
> > With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
> > different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
> > any individual could be expected to provide.
>
> > Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
> > relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
> > commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
>
> I can't say it better. Thank you Tim :)
> Maybe just to reinforce:
> 1) We have absolutely stable model VM for classlib verification - j9
> it's name. Therefore I really don't think DRLVM can affect classlib's
> progress disruptively.
> 2) Yes, there are times when some component advances in leaps as
> against accustomed smooth evolution. I do believe we'll be able to
> manage such cases individually, w/o overburdening everyday activities.
I am for (2) too. But a small correction: rollback is not always
reasonable. We can explicitly agree if we do rollback or fix ASAP (as
we did with TM and launcher).
I do not like (1) because interfaces are evolving. And I am not
feeling like this process would stop in a short time. (3) is just too
long to run as pre-commit, IMHO.
Though, we might select some most bug-catching tests from HUT to run
as pre-commit. I have nothing concrete to suggest now. We might return
to this idea in future, when we have a longer history.
--
Egor Pasko
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/16, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
> > classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
> > impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether
> > your
> > test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
> >
> > I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
> > JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
> > criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
> > came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
> > and JIT.
> >
> > To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
> > solutions:
> >
> > 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
> > version from time to time.
> > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
> > Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
> > - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
> > - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
> > when we want to update the version for classlib testing
> >
> > 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
> > regressions
> > Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> > + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
> > Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
> > rollback)
> > - It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
> > - Rollbacks are costly
> >
> > 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
> > Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
> > + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
> > Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
> > take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
> >
> > I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
> > I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
> > and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
>
> While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
> unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
> As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
> commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
> that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
> back out a patch and re-evaluate.
>
> With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
> different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
> any individual could be expected to provide.
>
> Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
> relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
> commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
I can't say it better. Thank you Tim :)
Maybe just to reinforce:
1) We have absolutely stable model VM for classlib verification - j9
it's name. Therefore I really don't think DRLVM can affect classlib's
progress disruptively.
2) Yes, there are times when some component advances in leaps as
against accustomed smooth evolution. I do believe we'll be able to
manage such cases individually, w/o overburdening everyday activities.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
> classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
> impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether
> your
> test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
>
> I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
> JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
> criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
> came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
> and JIT.
>
> To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
> solutions:
>
> 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
> version from time to time.
> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
> Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
> - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
> - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
> when we want to update the version for classlib testing
>
> 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
> regressions
> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
> Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
> rollback)
> - It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
> - Rollbacks are costly
>
> 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
> Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
> + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
> Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
> take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
>
> I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
> I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
> and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
back out a patch and re-evaluate.
With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
any individual could be expected to provide.
Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Pavel Ozhdikhin <pa...@gmail.com>.
We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise it's
impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know whether your
test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for some time
JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And finally we
came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in both VM
and JIT.
To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3 possible
solutions:
1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update this
version from time to time.
Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
+ Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
- Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
- Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
when we want to update the version for classlib testing
2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits causing
regressions
Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
+ Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag before
rollback)
- It is not always clear which commit caused a regression
- Rollbacks are costly
3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
+ DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that HUT
take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it afterwards. So,
I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the second
and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is possible.
thanks,
Pavel
On 11/16/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/11/16, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > why not?
> But what benefit it would bring? build test in DRLVM takes too much
> time already, I'm afraid people will just stop using it :(
>
> This is analogous to enforcing full testing in classlib for every
> change regardless of module. Evidently this is too expensive.
>
> >
> > 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > > Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > > > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort,
> with
> > > >> everyone pitching in.
> > > >>
> > > >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still
> need
> > > >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our
> classlibrary),
> > > >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI
> testing
> > > >> framework.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
> > > > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the
> "test"
> > > > target of DRLVM build.
> > > > What do people think?
> > >
> > > Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pavel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> geir
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > > >> > Oops, I've missed:
> > > >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
> > > >> discussions
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Folks,
> > > >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library
> unit
> > > >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the
> great
> > > >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
> > > >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to
> this):
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> > > >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> > > >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM
> patches
> > > >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking
> and
> > > >> >> committing related class library patches
> > > >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA
> issue
> > > >> >> resolution guidelines
> > > >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> > > >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey
> Ivanov for
> > > >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov,
> Nikolay
> > > >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines
> work
> > > >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> > > >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling
> and
> > > >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> > > >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> > > >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> > > >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems,
> reviewing
> > > >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
> > > >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> > > >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> > > >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless
> nights
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and
> other
> > > >> >> special configurations, so the page
> > > >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
> > > >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class
> library
> > > >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you
> think?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Thank you,
> > > >> >> Alexei
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/16, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> why not?
But what benefit it would bring? build test in DRLVM takes too much
time already, I'm afraid people will just stop using it :(
This is analogous to enforcing full testing in classlib for every
change regardless of module. Evidently this is too expensive.
>
> 2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> >
> >
> > Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
> > >> everyone pitching in.
> > >>
> > >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
> > >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
> > >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI testing
> > >> framework.
> > >
> > >
> > > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
> > > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the "test"
> > > target of DRLVM build.
> > > What do people think?
> >
> > Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
> >
> > geir
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pavel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> geir
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > >> > Oops, I've missed:
> > >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
> > >> discussions
> > >> >
> > >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Folks,
> > >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
> > >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
> > >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
> > >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
> > >> >>
> > >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> > >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> > >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
> > >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
> > >> >> committing related class library patches
> > >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
> > >> >> resolution guidelines
> > >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> > >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for
> > >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
> > >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
> > >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> > >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
> > >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> > >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> > >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> > >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
> > >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
> > >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> > >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> > >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
> > >> >> special configurations, so the page
> > >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
> > >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
> > >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Thank you,
> > >> >> Alexei
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
why not?
2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>
>
> Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> > On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
> >> everyone pitching in.
> >>
> >> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
> >> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
> >> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI testing
> >> framework.
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
> > to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the "test"
> > target of DRLVM build.
> > What do people think?
>
> Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
>
> geir
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pavel
> >
> >
> >
> >> geir
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> >> > Oops, I've missed:
> >> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
> >> discussions
> >> >
> >> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Folks,
> >> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
> >> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
> >> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
> >> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
> >> >>
> >> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> >> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> >> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
> >> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
> >> >> committing related class library patches
> >> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
> >> >> resolution guidelines
> >> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> >> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for
> >> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
> >> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
> >> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> >> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
> >> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> >> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> >> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> >> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
> >> >> and trying DRLVM patches
> >> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> >> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> >> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
> >> >>
> >> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
> >> >> special configurations, so the page
> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
> >> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
> >> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Thank you,
> >> >> Alexei
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
>> everyone pitching in.
>>
>> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
>> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
>> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI testing
>> framework.
>
>
> On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
> to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the "test"
> target of DRLVM build.
> What do people think?
Adding classlib unit tests to DRLVM test target? No thanks :)
geir
>
> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
>
>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>> > Oops, I've missed:
>> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
>> discussions
>> >
>> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Folks,
>> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
>> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
>> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
>> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
>> >>
>> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
>> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
>> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
>> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
>> >> committing related class library patches
>> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
>> >> resolution guidelines
>> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
>> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for
>> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
>> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
>> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
>> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
>> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
>> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
>> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
>> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
>> >> and trying DRLVM patches
>> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
>> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
>> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
>> >>
>> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
>> >> special configurations, so the page
>> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
>> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
>> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> Alexei
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Pavel Ozhdikhin <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
> everyone pitching in.
>
> DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
> to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
> as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI testing
> framework.
On the other hand, to make sure DRLVM has no regressions regarding
to Classlibrary Unit Tests it makes sense to add these tests to the "test"
target of DRLVM build.
What do people think?
Thanks,
Pavel
> geir
>
>
> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > Oops, I've missed:
> > * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful
> discussions
> >
> > On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
> >> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
> >> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
> >> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
> >>
> >> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> >> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> >> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
> >> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
> >> committing related class library patches
> >> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
> >> resolution guidelines
> >> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> >> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for
> >> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
> >> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
> >> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> >> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
> >> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> >> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> >> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> >> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
> >> and trying DRLVM patches
> >> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> >> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> >> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
> >>
> >> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
> >> special configurations, so the page
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
> >> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
> >> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thank you,
> >> Alexei
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
everyone pitching in.
DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
as a sanity check, but we should from now on use DRLVM in our CI testing
framework.
geir
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Oops, I've missed:
> * Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful discussions
>
> On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit
>> tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great
>> team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep
>> inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
>>
>> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
>> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
>> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
>> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and
>> committing related class library patches
>> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue
>> resolution guidelines
>> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
>> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for
>> fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay
>> Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
>> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
>> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and
>> reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
>> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
>> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
>> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing
>> and trying DRLVM patches
>> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
>> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
>> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
>>
>> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other
>> special configurations, so the page
>> http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains
>> active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library
>> testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>>
>> --
>> Thank you,
>> Alexei
>
>
>
Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Oops, I've missed:
* Andrew Zhang for reviewing class library patches and helpful discussions
On 11/16/06, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks,
> According to http://harmonytest.org, today 100% of class library unit tests pass on DRLVM. Thank you all! It takes 44 days for the great team we are. Thanks for your thoughtful, diligent work and deep inspiration. Kudos to you for the following (and not limited to this):
>
> * Alexey Varlamov and Elena for driving the whole process
> * Anton and Vladimir Ivanov for automating test runs
> * Geir and Gregory for checking and committing related DRLVM patches
> * Paulex, Tim, Nathan, Stepan and Mikhail Loenko for checking and committing related class library patches
> * Alexey Petrenko for becoming ICU expert and writing good JIRA issue resolution guidelines
> * Alexei Zakharov for resolving class library test issues
> * Ilya Okomin, Denis Kishenko, Oleg Khaschansky and Alexey Ivanov for fixing class library and tests* Ivan, Egor, Mikhail Fursov, Nikolay Sidelnikov and Alexander Astapchuk for making execution engines work
> * Tatiana and Maxim for filing JIRA issues about test failures
> * Nikolay Kuznetsov for completing thread interruption handling and reverting consequences of park/unpark integration
> * Pavel Afremov for fixing exception handling
> * Boris Kuznetsov for intelligent fixing of security tests
> * Rana and Salikh for evaluating and discussing problems, reviewing and trying DRLVM patches
> * Pavel Pervov and Evgueni for help with DRLVM patches
> * Artem for discovering and fixing weird Windows* behavior
> * My wife for bringing hot tea to the computer during sleepless nights
>
> There are still open issues with reliability, multiprocessor and other special configurations, so the page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Unit_Tests_Pass_on_DRLVM remains active. But this shouldn't prevent us from including class library testing into Harmony "zero regression" policy. What do you think?
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Alexei
--
Thank you,
Alexei