The problem is that System.out was being closed. This is a trivial fix. I have a fix and will commit it shortly without a JIRA.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I enable *any* of the TestClusterDumper tests then all further tests are > prevented from running. If I disable *all* of them, everything works fine. > > I first suspected a call to System.exit(), but I don't see any. Will debug > further. > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The problem wasn't the time. It was that the tests stopped executing >> without letting subsequent tests run. I will update and check it out. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jeff Eastman <jeast...@narus.com>wrote: >> >>> This pulled a couple minutes out of the build, but core is still the long >>> pole in the tent, at 12m on my laptop. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeff Eastman [mailto:jeast...@narus.com] >>> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:52 AM >>> To: dev@mahout.apache.org >>> Subject: RE: problems with util test cases >>> >>> One easy fix would be to use the sequential mode processing for the >>> cluster dumper tests. Running in mapreduce mode the test takes 3 minutes on >>> my laptop. With sequential mode it takes 2m10s, all but 22s doing SVD and >>> DSVD computations (3 tests). With those 3 commented out it runs most >>> quickly. I will commit that change now. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:16 AM >>> To: dev@mahout.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: problems with util test cases >>> >>> Yes. Makes huge sense to open a ticket. >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher Jordan <cjor...@gilt.com >>> >wrote: >>> >>> > Does it make sense to open a ticket to fix these test cases? I am >>> likely >>> > going to be poking at the cluster dumper next week and might be able to >>> > help. >>> > >>> > On Apr 22, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>> > >>> > > I would love it. Especially since it doesn't check the results. >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> It takes about five minutes to run too, which is maybe 1/3 of the >>> whole >>> > >> test >>> > >> time. Would anyone be offended if we made this a non-test test that >>> > didn't >>> > >> run by default? >>> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ted Dunning < >>> ted.dunn...@gmail.com> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> No. That isn't the issue. Several of these tests run faster and >>> when >>> > >> run >>> > >>> in isolation they don't seem to complete or fail. They stop >>> executing, >>> > >> but >>> > >>> no succeeding tests run. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
