FYI: [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] Total time: 28 minutes 1 second [INFO] Finished at: Tue Dec 29 02:14:43 CET 2009 [INFO] Final Memory: 263M/424M [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is rev 894287 On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:16 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:59 AM, Daniel S. Haischt wrote: > > btw the buildbot status page URL is: >> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openejb-trunk/ >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Jacek Laskowski <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Going to see if I can't add more checks in the test case in some way and >>>> maybe drive out some more information. >>>> >>> >>> I wish I could help with it, but have no idea how. Looking for >>> low-hanging fruits and thought it could be one, but I couldn't have >>> been mistaken more :( >>> >> > I figured it out after jamming all the system.out statements in there. > Basically we never got finished creating all the "client" threads within > the allowed 20 seconds. The test is setup so that all the threads will > 'await' on a CyclicBarrier till everyone has reported in and is ready to go > -- i.e. all the runners are at the starting line. There were simply too > many "runners" for the machine to create in the 20 seconds allowed. > > That can happen really with any setting, so rather than just lower the > number of threads (runners) or increase the timeout, I fixed the test so > that it *should* brake more obviously if this condition occurs again, which > it could easily since it's largely dependent on machine speed. Hopefully > continuum will show the failure with a better stack trace now. I basically > just made it so the main test thread also waits on the CyclicBarrier (the > starting pistol), which seems completely obvious to me now, but of course > that's the way it goes :) > > Anyway, I'll lower the thread count tomorrow on that test if all breaks as > expected. > > -David > >
