I suggest that we don't exclude more tests listed in 2438 -- it seems like any
swiing test can fail
Instead we may remove all swing tests from CC when run on J9 and try to fix the
problem
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/12/20, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Actually, I was able to see these failures on swing tests only. But even for
swing these failures reproduced intermittently and only when all swing tests
run in the one VM.
Thanks, Vladimir
On 12/19/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> have you seen this stack when other tests run? maybe gui
> breaks something causing the failure? Are you able to reproduce the
> problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/12/19, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 12/19/06, Ivanov, Alexey A < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There's only one GUI test in your list: javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest.
> > > The others test text model, and this particular tests don't use any
> > > swing UI components at all.
> > >
> > > If I remember your reports correctly, the latter three tests fail
> > > because of some serialization failure.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, testParamString at javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest and
> testSerializable
> > for other tests. But actually the stack trace is similar (below) so I
> think
> > it not gui test problem. It is just reproduce this issue.
> >
> > Thanks, Vladimir
> > Stack trace:
> > Test: testParamStringClass: javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest
> > java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
> > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2553)
> > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort (Arrays.java:2516)
> > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2872)
> > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2889)
> > at java.beans.BeanInfoWrapper.getPropertyDescriptors(
> BeanInfoWrapper.java
> > :77)
> > at java.beans.BeanInfoWrapper.getPropertyDescriptors(
> BeanInfoWrapper.java
> > :74)
> > at javax.swing.JComponent.paramString(JComponent.java:1334)
> > at java.awt.Component.toString(Component.java:166)
> > at javax.swing.JToggleButtonTest.testParamString(JToggleButtonTest.java
> :64)
> > at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:25)
> > at javax.swing.BasicSwingTestCase.runBareSuper(BasicSwingTestCase.java:117)
> > at javax.swing.SwingTestCase$1.run(SwingTestCase.java:45)
> > at java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.runAndNotify(InvocationEvent.java:92)
> > at java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.dispatch(InvocationEvent.java :81)
> > at java.awt.EventQueueCore.dispatchEventImpl(EventQueueCore.java:133)
> > at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:144)
> > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.runModalLoop(EventDispatchThread.java:75)
> > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:48)
> >
> > Test: testSerializableClass:
> > javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_SerializationTest
> > java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
> > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2553)
> > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2516)
> > at java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:2517)
> > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2872)
> > at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:2889)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.computeSerialVersionUID(
> ObjectStreamClass.java
> > :54)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.addToCache(ObjectStreamClass.java:211)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookupStreamClass(ObjectStreamClass.java
> :937)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookup(ObjectStreamClass.java:90)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.addToCache(ObjectStreamClass.java :23)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookupStreamClass(ObjectStreamClass.java
> :937)
> > at java.io.ObjectStreamClass.lookup(ObjectStreamClass.java:90)
> > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeClassDescForClass(
> ObjectOutputStream.java
> > :110)
> > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeNewObject(ObjectOutputStream.java
> :1644)
> > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObjectInternal(
> ObjectOutputStream.java
> > :1956)
> > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject (ObjectOutputStream.java:1785)
> > at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject(ObjectOutputStream.java:1749)
> > at javax.swing.BasicSwingTestCase.serializeObject(
> BasicSwingTestCase.java
> > :496)
> > at javax.swing.SerializableTestCase.setUp (SerializableTestCase.java:50)
> > at javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_SerializationTest.setUp
> > (AbstractDocument_SerializationTest.java:43)
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexey.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 12/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > >> > 2006/12/18, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > >> >> > 2006/12/1, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > >> >> >> > 4) We have cruise controls running classlibrary tests on
> > > DRLVM.
> > > >We
> > > >> >> >> > need to decide what will we do when DRLVM+Classlib cruise
> > > control
> > > >> >> >> > reports failure.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Stop and fix the problem. Is there really a question
> here? I
> > > >agree
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Yes, there is a question here. "Stop and fix" includes
> > > "discuss".
> > > >But
> > > >>
> > > >> >> > as we now know discussion may take several days. And while
> some
> > > >> people
> > > >> >> > discuss what the problem is other people can't proceed with
> > > >> >> > development and patch
> > > >> >> > intagration.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > To have better pace and better CC up-time we need something
> else
> > > but
> > > >> >> not
> > > >> >> > just "stop and fix". I suggest "revert and continue"
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What's the difference, other than debating the semantics of
> "fix"
> > > and
> > > >> >> "revert"?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> We all agree - but I still don't think you're clearly stating
> the
> > > >> >> problem. I think that the core problem is that we don't
> > > immediately
> > > >> >> react to CC failure.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Immediately reacting to CC failure should be the first order of
> > > the
> > > >day
> > > >> >> here. Reacting to me is making the decision, quickly, about
> > > either
> > > >> >> rolling back the change ("reverting") or doing something else.
> > > The
> > > >key
> > > >>
> > > >> >> is being responsive.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It seems that what happens is that we wait, and then sets of
> > > changes
> > > >> >> pile up, and I think that doing mass rollbacks at that point
> will
> > > >solve
> > > >> >> it, but make a mess.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The example of what I envision is when I broke the build in
> DRLVM,
> > > >> >> Gregory told me immediately, and I fixed immediately - w/o a
> > > rollback.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> All I'm saying is :
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 1) We need to be far better with reaction time
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would say we need to be far better with fixing/reverting time.
> > > >> > If we reacted immediately and than discussed for two weeks -- we
> > > would
> > > >> not
> > > >> > be better than where we are now
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, fixing/reverting is included. It's what I meant.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 2) We have intelligent people - we can be agile in this by
> making
> > > >> >> decisions (quickly!) on a case by case basis what to do.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'll also suggest that we ask each committer to check the CC
> event
> > > >> >> stream before committing, so you don't commit into a bad state
> of
> > > >> things.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> One of my problems is that I don't trust the CC stream, and
> don't
> > > >> >> clearly see it because it's mixed in the other drek of the
> > > commits@
> > > >> list.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The problem is intermittent failures. I suggest that we exclude
> > > >graphics
> > > >> > tests
> > > >> > from CCs and probably have CC-specific exclude lists for
> networking
> > > >> tests
> > > >> > (or fix all the known intermittent failures right now :)
> > > >>
> > > >> good idea - works for me.
> > > >>
> > > >> We need to drive into stability - we've made amazing progress in
> the
> > > >> last two months, and now we're down to the really, really hard
> stuff.
> > > I
> > > >> think that excluding them to get rock-solid CC reporting is step 0,
> > > >> and then step 1 is try and grind out the intermittent failures.
> > > >>
> > > >> geir
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey A. Ivanov
> > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> > >
> >
> >
>
