Hi Tony,
On 02.11.2009, at 09:05, Toni Menzel wrote:
Hey Clement,
yes, thats a home made conflict.
Pax Exams working folder is made of 1. temporary folder (system
property) and 2. user name ( to avoid permission problems when
running tests by different users).
So, this setup is made for trouble when running tests in parallel.
Ok.
To simply fix this, you can set the workingFolder(..) option (maybe
dynamically) to a unique folder.
I did that for my side and it works great. However:
1) it pollutes a little bit the configuration with 'test-
infrastructure' code.
2) it is not really possible for me to say to all the others projects
using pax:exam (and you're victim of your success) to use such method.
But: When using a maven local repository for those builds, be aware
this is filebased as well and may corrupt your local repository when
downloads of the same artifact for different versions happen at the
same time (for example).
I agree. The first common issue is the OBR that is quickly corrupted.
But obviously if two builds try to download the same artifact at the
same time, I don't know how Maven reacts. However a continuous build
server with only one build at a time might be a little bit annoying
(especially if previous builds take a lot of time).
However, if you feel the Pax Exam unique working folder solution
crucial, feel free to add a feature jira request so this could be a
simple option in core exam.
Done, I will not say crucial, just useful ...
http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-155
Thanks and Regards,
Clement
Toni
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Clement Escoffier <[email protected]
> wrote:
Hi,
We're using pax:exam, and uses a continuous build system (Bamboo in
this case) to execute automatically the tests. However, yesterday a
very strange issue appeared. Bamboo was executing two builds at the
same time, both using pax:exam. It sounds like the two tests
conflict...
The first test was telling me that a bundle from the other test was
not deployable.
The second test throws bug me about an unresolved constraint (which
makes sense because of the missing bundle...)
If I run the two build separately (and sequentially) everything
works fine.
Is there something that we can do to avoid such strange conflict ?
(it is really a conflict ?).
Regards,
Clement
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
--
Toni Menzel
Independent Software Developer
Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
[email protected]
http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
Participation Software.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
