Sorry, I had assumed I know which test failed even before reading the spec description... I was wrong, and I was trying to "fix" the wrong test. I now tried to apply the fix again and I'm currently running the tests in a loop again. If they haven't failed after 2 hours, I will commit.
Vassil On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
