+1 for externalizing host names from tests and set it to <something>.apache.org .
Is it possible to get a domain name for multicast address?
Do we really need this? Regards, 2007/6/4, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Is it possible to get a domain name for multicast address? On 6/4/07, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > I've tried to use www.apache.org in any tests I've contributed - I think > that makes sense. > > > On 04/06/07, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps we should be more consistent in our use of domain names and IP > > addresses in tests? I notice for instance that running our test causes > > DNS lookups for the following (all of which have valid name servers): > > > > superdns.com > > www.google.com > > a.b.c.x.y.z.com > > www.intel.com > > another.host.com > > jcltest.apache.org > > > > We also look up odd addresses like "-", "unresolved address", and > > "any-other-site-which-is-not-siteName.com". > > > > Do we really need to query these - particularly those that we don't > > control[0]? It doesn't really seem polite to run automated tests that > > result in queries against machines we don't own[1]. > > > > Similarly, we do PTR lookups for things like: > > > > 1.0.0.0 > > > > which is currently reserved but could be given away at any time. > > > > I'd suggest that any test that results a DNS lookup should use an > > apache.org name/address where possible. We should also pick two names > > (and two address for reverse lookups) to use consistently for lookup > > requiring valid and invalid lookups. > > > > Any test that merely references an name or ip address should use the > > conventions described in RFC-2606 or RFC-1918 respectively. > > > > I'm sure there will be exceptions - for instance, sometimes it might be > > better to use a 127.0.0.0/8 address - but I still think some consistency > > would be a good idea. Comments? > > > > Regards, > > Mark. > > > > [0] z.com is actually owned by IBM but almost certainly not controlled > > by anyone on this list. > > > > [1] Of course, there are some - like root servers - that we can't > > sensibly avoid. > > > > On 4 June 2007 at 10:04, "Tony Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Alexei, > > > > > > This test fails because the address 239.255.2.3 is baned by firewall. > > > I've added it to accpet list. > > > > > > test2276 Error Operation not permitted > > > > > > java.net.SocketException: Operation not permitted at > > > org.apache.harmony.luni.platform.OSNetworkSystem.sendDatagramImpl(Native > > > Method) at org.apache.harmony.luni.platform.OSNetworkSystem.sendDatagram > > (OSNe > > > tworkSystem.java:155) > > > at org.apache.harmony.luni.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl.send > > (PlainDatagramSock > > > etImpl.java:275) > > > at java.net.DatagramSocket.send(DatagramSocket.java:448) at > > > tests.api.java.net.DatagramSocketTest.test2276(DatagramSocketTest.java > > :90) > > > at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:25) > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/07, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > [exec] [junit] Tests run: 35, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Time > > elaps > > > ed: 15.173 sec > > > > > [exec] [junit] TEST tests.api.java.net.DatagramSocketTestFAILED > > > > > > > > I can't reproduce it neither on Windows nor on Linux. Can anyone from > > > > IBM guys send more detailed information about this failure? Thanks! > > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > 7/6/3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> > > -- > > > Tony Wu > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > -- > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- Tony Wu China Software Development Lab, IBM
-- Alexei Zakharov, Intel ESSD
