OK, after one hour and 276 times of running the TwitterAPI test without a failure I decided it's OK and committed.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
