"whereby end-users can tweak this in there own environment (by e.g. a
configuration setting)"
There has been plenty of discussion on this already. Please read the
previous replies, and the Jira issue mentioned in the replies.
-Adrian
On 4/30/2012 1:33 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
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
