2006/12/20, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > Instead we may remove all swing tests from CC when run on J9 and try to
>> > fix the
>> > problem
>>
>> +1
>>
>> geir
>
>
>
> To remove tests from CC only we need a special exclude lists for CC. Is it
> OK to store it together with modules exclude lists to update it with
> classlib ws?
I guess my question is "why is CC special?" IOW, shouldn't we exclude
those tests for J9 in general?
I'm +1 for special exclude lists for CC:
if we exclude something in regular x-list, we lose that tests for some time,
but when we exclude intermittent failures in CC we still can use the tests
to check for stable failures.
Example: seems like currently each swing test can intermittently fail
for some reason. We can exclude all swing tests from CC to have
reliable CC reports. But
if we exclude them from pre-commit testing we won't be able to test
any commit to swing.
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
>
>
> Also option in the build to exclude some modules will be very useful.
> Something like '-Dnot.build.module=swing'.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Vladimir
>
>
>
>> >
>> > 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
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
