Actually there's conductor actor in Specs, I seem to steal ideas from there a lot lately :)
The problem is that when there are multiple cascaded asyncronous calls, it doesn't work so well in practice. For instance, I can guarantee that NewMessage has been received, but the AddToMailbox might not have been received, even though it's "sent" before NewMessage. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Vassil, > > At some point I'm going to put your conductor actor into the API2 and > API tests. That was a great idea. (Did I already say this back when > you first checked it in? I definitely thought it :-) > > Ethan > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
