Hi Piotr, Thank you for your detailed comments.
I'll try building again... until the build goes all the way through... Gary On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:11 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <pi...@mailing.copernik.eu> wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On 9.11.2024 14:11, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I get this failure: > > > > [ERROR] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: > > 4.963 s <<< FAILURE! -- in > > > org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.rolling.RollingAppenderDirectCronTest > > [ERROR] > > > org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.rolling.RollingAppenderDirectCronTest.testAppender(LoggerContext, > > RollingFileAppender) -- Time elapsed: 4.601 s <<< FAILURE! > > > > Details: > > https://gist.github.com/garydgregory/889c0b9aaea1edc3aa56cad075802b83 > The tests of the rolling appender and especially those that use the > `CronTriggeringPolicy` are notably flaky[1]. I am keeping them for lack > of a better alternative, but they should probably be rewritten from > scratch. Since the `CronTriggeringPolicy` always performs rollovers > asynchronously, we should decide: > > 1. How synchronized should the tests be? I can pretty much modify them > so that log statements and rollovers happen sequentially in a predefined > order. Would that be a good test? > > 2. The tests are in my opinion overspecified: they make assertions on > the content of a log file. Those assertions should probably be dropped > and left to the layout unit tests. In the case of the > `CronTriggeringPolicy` tests, we can not even make assertions on the > relative position of the log event timestamp to the rollover timestamp. > They can be arbitrary. > > In the gist you shared above, nothing indicates that the rolling > appender is malfunctioning: the status logger shows at least on rollover. > > Piotr > > [1] > > https://ge.apache.org/scans/tests?search.rootProjectNames=Apache%20Log4j%20BOM&search.timeZoneId=Europe%2FWarsaw > >
