This message just means that the test is running. Possibly it hung and will not return possibly it just runs for a long time. This message is practical because if you're running on multiple forked jvms there is no way to pipe their output to a single console sybchronously.
I don't think the test framework is to blame here. Some of the tests are just flaky. I've tried to exclude them from a normal test run a few times but this was received with mixed response. See the archives. Dawid Sent from mobile phone. On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Erick Erickson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Unit tests are good. We all know that. But I'm becoming increasingly > frustrated at trying to run them. I've been working on LUCENE-4326 for > a while (ok, intermittently, but...). I've been almost unable to > successfully run "ant test" at the top level, I'm back to the message: > > HEARTBEAT J1: 2012-09-16T10:19:32, no events in: 183s, approx. at: > TestReplicationHandler.test > > going on forever, or at least 1,800+ seconds and counting right now. I > have no clue what it means to terminate the test run at this point. > Are there tests that haven't been run yet that won't get run if I > ctrl-C? I don't know.... > > OK, I can wait for a long time and hope it terminates sometime, which > it has in the past. Eventually. Maybe. Which makes trying to actually > _use_ the tests frustrating at best and I would guess intimidating as > hell for people who do even less coding than I do... > > I can terminate the tests and grep for "reproduce with" or "FAILURE" > in the output file. I can run any failing tests on an unaltered branch > (which may well miss stuff if the tests terminate without > completing).... I can do a lot of things that involve checking in code > without successfully doing what it says on the "how to contribute" > page. I see a build target "jenkins-hourly" that seems promising, is > it enough? If so, I'll change the "how to contribute" page.... > > So what's the story? Given the pace that fixes flow into the system, > others aren't having the trouble I'm having or no new code would get > checked in. So I've got to assume there's a process that's not > documented that people are using in order to make progress. If there > is such a process, we need to make it plain on the "How to contribute" > page, not have it be something that each of us has to create our own > private way of coping. Or fix the system so this doesn't happen all > the time (Yeah, I know, I should feel free <G>). > > I'm about to adopt the policy that I'll run any failing tests on the > code on an unaltered tree and if they fail on the unaltered tree I'll > check stuff in anyway. That's poor policy at best, and on the way to > "the hell with the testing" as an attitude. Testing is getting in the > way of progress in my case, not helping me not break things. > > Or my particular system (OS x, Lion) is just screwed up and I've been > too lazy to dig enough to understand why... > > Erick@FrustratedOnASundayMorning > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
