On 14.07.10 11:28, Tiago Espinha wrote:
Would you define MAX_PORTS_USED through a system property? I suppose we could
keep a default limit that is a tight fit on the suites.All and if a property,
say derby.tests.maxPortsUsed, is defined then we override it with that value.
No, MAX_PORTS_USED would be defined in TestConfiguration as today.
My point was that parallel runners should be able to calculate port
ranges without the user having to specify how many ports are required
per run.
Something like:
int basePort = getUserSpecifiedValue("baseport");
String[] suiteNames = AllPackages.getTopLevelSuiteNames();
// A smarter runner would use a port range pool, but this is just
for illustration :)
int[] basePorts = new int[suiteNames.length];
for (int i=0; i < basePorts.length; i++) {
basePorts[i] = basePort + (i * TestConfiguration.getMaxPortsUsed())
}
This way, I don't have to update my parallel run-script when someone
adds a new test that causes MAX_PORTS_USED to be incremented.
--
Kristian
Would this be ok?
Tiago
----- Original Message ----
From: Kristian Waagan<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 10:06:54
Subject: Re: regression test regressed
On 14.07.10 10:57, Tiago Espinha wrote:
[ snip ]
By having this constant and enforcing this limit, we can safely have a test
run
with basePort=1527 and another one with basePort=1538. If we were doing runs
like this and someone creates a new test that requires a new alternative port
(and if we didn't have the limit) then at some point the first run would be
using 1538 and our second run would also be using that at some point. We can't
say for sure that they will collide but the possibility exists.
I wonder if we should make MAX_PORTS_USED public (maybe a public static
method would be better), then parallel runners can configure the port
ranges without any more help from the user than a base port.
