g On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, it's not really a bug of the implementation, it's an > imperfection of the test. If one delivers the final product (war or > whatever it is), the tests are usually not there anyway, so I'm not > even sure it's worth a mention.
Good point > > Vassil > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't see this bug has threatening 1.1 >> >> We might want to have a section in the release notes called "Known >> bugs" - this bug and the other small bugs would be added to this >> section. >> >> What do you think about that? >> >> D. >> >> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> There's some good news and some bad news regarding the tests. >>> >>> The good news is that I managed to reproduce the failing test fairly >>> easily- running the test in a loop until it fails resulted in a fail >>> after 10-15 minutes on my machine. >>> >>> The bad news is that with my fixes it still fails eventually, if not faster. >>> >>> This means we will probably have to revert to using the good >>> old-fashioned timeouts, which are a tradeoff between risking the test >>> to fail and slowing it down too much. >>> >>> The problem is certainly not critical for release, of course, but >>> eventually I want to have more deterministic tests, but this probably >>> means some small additions to the Distributor API. >>> >>> Vassil >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> OK, I've setup some tests to run over the night (these are hard to >>>> reproduce) and we'll see what we get in the morning >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I thought I had these sorted out, but obviously not. The problem is >>>>>> that there's no easy way to find out when the message is going to >>>>>> appear in the timeline, because it's asynchronous. Will try to look >>>>>> for the problem tonight. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> LOL - the test in the twittwerapi that I mentioned before - is no >>>>>>> failing on hudson as well - >>>>>>> https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/ESME/org.apache.esme$esme-server/339/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No idea why >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Apache Hudson Server >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> See >>>>>>>> <https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/ESME/org.apache.esme$esme-server/339/changes> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
