You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2009/09/02 21:13:29 UTC
Back to normal.....
I THINK we're pretty much back to normal on the three branches after Benson's
big systest refactor. It's been merged down the branches (and the equivalent
branches at FUSE) so test changes and stuff for bug fixes should be easily
merged down the branches.
There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked Sergey to
look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he cannot find a fix
tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
In anycase, I think we're ok now. Only took 3 days to do and cost me
something like 25 points in the Hudson leader board (though I'm still nearly
double Sergey who's in second ;-) ), but it looks like we're OK now.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
RE: Failing JMS Continuations test (Was : Re: Back to normal.....)
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
Thanks Dan for finding the actual issues with the ConduitSelector.
One thing this test has confirmed is that the way JMS continuations are
handled on the server side is pretty rock solid...
Cheers, Sergey
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
Sent: 03 September 2009 18:54
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Cc: Sergey Beryozkin; Benson Margulies
Subject: Re: Failing JMS Continuations test (Was : Re: Back to
normal.....)
OK. I'm pretty sure Sergey and I tracked this down to some thread
safety
issues in the ConduitSelector. However, it was made even worse on
2.2.x/2.1.x due to some additional thread safety issues in the
JMSConduit on
those branches. (trunk has a completely updated conduit that doesn't
suffer
the problem)
Anyway, I'm hoping the next round of hudson builds will be good. :-)
Dan
On Thu September 3 2009 6:41:03 am Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> >> > There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked
> >> > Sergey to look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he
cannot
> >> > find a fix tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
>
> Looking into it now... The initial observation is that it is always
green
> if the test server (Server2) is started in the in-process mode, all
the 5
> client threads get their expected responses back after firing at the
same
> time but it fails as soon as the Server2 is launched in a seperate
> process... Not quite sure yet what does it indicate at...
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Failing JMS Continuations test (Was : Re: Back to normal.....)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
OK. I'm pretty sure Sergey and I tracked this down to some thread safety
issues in the ConduitSelector. However, it was made even worse on
2.2.x/2.1.x due to some additional thread safety issues in the JMSConduit on
those branches. (trunk has a completely updated conduit that doesn't suffer
the problem)
Anyway, I'm hoping the next round of hudson builds will be good. :-)
Dan
On Thu September 3 2009 6:41:03 am Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> >> > There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked
> >> > Sergey to look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he cannot
> >> > find a fix tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
>
> Looking into it now... The initial observation is that it is always green
> if the test server (Server2) is started in the in-process mode, all the 5
> client threads get their expected responses back after firing at the same
> time but it fails as soon as the Server2 is launched in a seperate
> process... Not quite sure yet what does it indicate at...
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Failing JMS Continuations test (Was : Re: Back to normal.....)
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
>> > There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked Sergey
>> > to look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he cannot find a
>> > fix tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
Looking into it now... The initial observation is that it is always green if the test server (Server2) is started in the in-process
mode, all the 5 client threads get their expected responses back after firing at the same time but it fails as soon as the Server2
is launched in a seperate process... Not quite sure yet what does it indicate at...
cheers, Sergey
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Back to normal.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Wed September 2 2009 3:56:58 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> Inquiring minds want to know: are you gonna move corba tests to their own
> group?
Actually, I'd really want to ask a slightly broader question: how fine grained
should the categories be? For example: you created an aegis category for
aegis. Would it have been better to be a "databinding" category that would
cover aegis/jaxb/xmlbeans/sdo?
For the ws-specs, I did it relatively broad. I could have had a ws-policy,
ws-security, ws-rm, etc... groups, but decided to keep it broader.
Another example, do we have separate http-servlet, http-jetty, jms, etc...
groups or just a "transports" group?
Basically, the broader the groups, the better sharing we can get. (for
example: I know the JMS and http-jetty tests share a bunch of things related
to the continuations)
To specifically answer your question: no. There are two corba test packages:
1) one in org.apache.cxf.systest.corba - that one could be split out, but it's
small. Not much point.
2) one in org.apache.cxf.systest.type_test.corba - this is part of the whole
type_test framework of tests and cannot be separated out of there (easily).
Dan
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I THINK we're pretty much back to normal on the three branches after
> > Benson's
> > big systest refactor. It's been merged down the branches (and the
> > equivalent
> > branches at FUSE) so test changes and stuff for bug fixes should be
> > easily merged down the branches.
> >
> > There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked Sergey
> > to look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he cannot find a
> > fix tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
> >
> > In anycase, I think we're ok now. Only took 3 days to do and cost me
> > something like 25 points in the Hudson leader board (though I'm still
> > nearly
> > double Sergey who's in second ;-) ), but it looks like we're OK now.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Back to normal.....
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Inquiring minds want to know: are you gonna move corba tests to their own
group?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I THINK we're pretty much back to normal on the three branches after
> Benson's
> big systest refactor. It's been merged down the branches (and the
> equivalent
> branches at FUSE) so test changes and stuff for bug fixes should be easily
> merged down the branches.
>
> There is a "randomly" failing continuations test that I've asked Sergey to
> look at, but it's failing on on the branches. If he cannot find a fix
> tomorrow, I'll @Ignore it for a bit.
>
> In anycase, I think we're ok now. Only took 3 days to do and cost me
> something like 25 points in the Hudson leader board (though I'm still
> nearly
> double Sergey who's in second ;-) ), but it looks like we're OK now.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>