Stepan, Ok, I will live with these warnings produced by the harness. Thanks.
On 11/1/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Alexei, > > On 10/30/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stepan, > > > > You asked: > > > What made them [fields] "obsolete"? > > > > Actually the thing I'm suggesting by my patch is to make these fields > > "optional". > > This is not "true" - they are optional. It is possible to omit them in > the test's description - the harness runs the test, only warning is > printed. For example, if you omit 'testID' then exception is thrown > and the test is not run. > > > I believe I may want to make Harmony becoming more > > convenient for a test developer I am. > > > > The author field was made obsolete by Geir's decision to keep authors > > outside of source code (remember removing Ivan Volosyuk from > > interpreter sources?) This decision was discussed a bit, but there > > were no strong arguments against. > > > > IMO, 'authors' names in code source and 'authors' field in test's > description are two different things. I wouldn't mix them. Yes, there > is the agreement (OK to remove) about the first one and the second one > hasn't been discussed before. > > > I don't see a reason of keeping date-of-creation attribute as a > > mandatory field. The following argument is a bit stronger: this > > argument is duplicated with another one and should be completely > > removed. The first file modification is usually done at the Day of > > Creation, and the current format allows several modification dates. > > > > Again, I believe that if there is a reason to remove some feature then > the removal should be entire and complete. We shouldn't remove only > warnings and leave other debris of functionality in the harness. > > For example, currently the harness has the option to select tests for > running based on authors name. If I want to run all tests created by > you I should pass to the harness something like: "-execopt > Selector:exclude:Author Fedotov". Also in this case a warning about > tests that were not selected because of missing authors field is very > helpful. And your patch removes it. The same for "creation-date". > > > Thanks. > > > > BTW, to make this discussion a bit more interesting for techies, let > > me add here a discussion of memory cleanup algorithm from our chat > > with Andrew: > > > > Andrew: Does it make sense to invoke System.gc() multiple times to > > release memory completely? > > > > me: I have the following assertion in my tests: allocated == finalized > > and there is no other way to check that all objects are finalized than > > to invoke gc and to check that amount of available memory no longer > > increase (I also check that max chunk size stabilizes) > > > > Andrew: so to release memory completely, which approach is better? 1. > > invoke gc multiple times; 2. gc, thread.sleep > > > > me: I believe I combine both: > > sleep does actual finalization work :-) > > gc() is for check > > > > I'd like to add a couple of notes here: If you like to discuss stress > tests details it is better to start new thread with corresponding > topic. And before revealing private conversation details please make > sure to get consent from all parties involved. > > Thanks, > Stepan. > > <SNIP> > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
