Pierre, please also consider that the dev list should be used by OFBiz committers to discuss about development and project related tasks; we are happy if non committers follow the discussions and participate to votes (non binding votes) but they should limit the number of posts in the dev list and most of all avoid to argue with committers (to avoid confusion and waste of time of expert resources).
Kind regards, Jacopo On Apr 30, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > "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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
