Hi Daniel,
On 4/22/2015 1:31 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 22/04/15 04:13, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
One goal of marking the tests using randomness is to help root out some
remaining intermittent test failures. If one of the randomness tests is
observed to fail intermittently, if it has not already been updated to
print out the random seed and be able to accept a particular seed when
run, the test should be so modified so that future failures can log the
seed value in hopes of reproducing the failure.
Hi Joe,
The following logging tests use UUID.randomUUID() to generate
a 'unique' file name in order to avoid possible collision if
these tests are run concurrently or if some files have been
left over from a previous run (some of these use %t - the temporary
directory - which has been known to cause intermittent
failure in those cases).
So I believe that removing randomness, or attempting to
make it predictable, would in those specific cases make
those tests more prone to intermittent failures.
In this light - should these tests still be tagged with
the @randomness keyword?
test/java/util/logging/CheckZombieLockTest.java
test/java/util/logging/FileHandlerLongLimit.java
test/java/util/logging/FileHandlerPath.java
test/java/util/logging/FileHandlerPatternExceptions.java
test/java/util/logging/LogManager/Configuration/ParentLoggerWithHandlerGC.java
The randomness label is just meant to be documentation and not
pejorative. Its uses in the tests you identify it is more likely to
increase rather than decrease stability. However, I still think it is
appropriate to mark these tests for their behavior.
Thanks,
-Joe
