Is it so difficult to answer the questions? I did not state that it should be a configuration setting. I was just asking a few civilized questions in order to understand it more.
Regards, Pierre 2012/4/30 Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> > This is NOT a configuration issue. Please stop trying to turn it into one. > > -Adrian > > > On 4/30/2012 1:23 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> Adrian, >> >> I accept that there is a difference, but using vastly is an exaggeration. >> >> Are we going to provide a fix for this issue, whereby end-users can tweak >> this in there own environment (by e.g. a configuration setting), or are we >> just trying to find an optimal number so that these test don't fail >> anymore? >> >> How dependent on the environment is OFBiz regarding these unit test? >> >> Regards, >> >> Pierre >> >> 2012/4/30 Adrian >> Crum<adrian.crum@sandglass-**software.com<adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >> > >> >> The two are vastly different. Configuring ports is something the end user >>> is responsible for. Cache unit tests that are failing need to be fixed. >>> Configuration != failed unit tests. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> On 4/30/2012 12:58 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>> >>> This issue seems to be a same kind of problem as the change of test >>>> ports >>>> in trunk. >>>> >>>> Why are we so adament that end users should and must apply patches in >>>> their >>>> own test environment regarding test ports, while we - on the other hand >>>> - >>>> are trying to fix something in trunk that is along the same line? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Pierre >>>> >>>> 2012/4/30 Adrian >>>> Crum<adrian.crum@sandglass-**s**oftware.com<http://software.com> >>>> <adrian.crum@**sandglass-software.com<adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I will give it a try, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. >>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/30/2012 12:42 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If, as Adam mentioned, it is an issue caused by the time-slice in your >>>>> >>>>>> box, then setting a greater timeout may fix the issue... if you will >>>>>> be >>>>>> able to make it work with, let's say 600 ms (or even 1s) then I would >>>>>> like >>>>>> to commit the change to make the test a bit more robust (even if it >>>>>> will be >>>>>> slower). >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/30/2012 10:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried experimenting with the sleep timing and I also replaced the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thread.sleep call with a safer version, but the tests still failed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> interesting... but if you change the Thread.sleep timeout from 200 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> 2000 it works, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I changed it to 300. By the way, the test finally passed for the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> time when I had another non-OFBiz process running at the same time >>>>>>> that was >>>>>>> making heavy use of the hard disk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
