Before you go off writing more code, just take a moment to look at
HARMONY-263 and tell us what you think of it.
Thanks
Tim
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> It seems everybody likes this approach. In that case, I have another
> idea for exclude lists. Can't we go further and extend the current
> exclude list functionality a bit more? And forget about TestNG and
> friends for a while I mean.
>
> For example, we can put exclude lists into something like:
>
> exclude.xml:
> ---
> <exclude-list>
> <!-- exclude only particular tests -->
> <class name="org.apache.harmony.luni.test.java.io.MyTest">
> <test name="testConstructor11"/>
> <test name="testMyMethodObjectObjectString_HY1234"/>
> </class>
> <!-- exclude all tests -->
> <class name="org.apache.harmony.luni.test.java.io.NiceTest2"
> includeAll="true"/>
> ...
> </exclude-list>
>
> exclude.linux.drlvm.xml:
> ---
> <exclude-list>
> <class name="org.apache.harmony.rmi.test.java.rmi.Ð’adBoyTest">
> <test name="testLinuxHang_my"/>
> </class>
> </exclude-list>
>
> And etc. ${hy.platfrom}and ${hy.harmony.vm.name} can be passed to the
> controller test suite by ant. By the controller test suite I mean the
> java class that knows how to parse the above files (using simple SAX
> parser for example - it is easy, I can help if needed) and implements
> junit TestSuite model to get fine-grained control over the testing
> process.
>
> IMHO this can be a nice solution for now. It's more powerful since it
> allows to exclude individual tests rather that whole classes. What do
> you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> 2006/11/15, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Seems, we says about different things :)
>>
>> First of all, we have no TestNG (or other harness) yet but we need now
>> different exclude lists for different platforms.
>>
>> Also, in my vision these exclude-lists are like a buffer before we
>> mark test
>> by correct tags.
>> When the test fails on some platform we update the corresponding
>> x-list and
>> investigate this failure.
>> As the result of investigation we mark the test or fix it.
>>
>> Thanks, Vladimir
>>
>>
>> On 11/15/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Things become more and more complicated. Can anyone say why we
>> > rejected to use TestSuites for this purpose from the very beginning?
>> > Well, I can't say I am against using xml lists here. But the next step
>> > will be to keep list of individual failing test methods in the xml
>> > file. Then to create separate xml lists for api and impl tests and so
>> > on. If we can't run original TestNG on Harmony then we invent it by
>> > ourselves. :-)
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > 2006/11/15, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > As part of solution for this issue the
>> > > *HARMONY-2197*<http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2197> was
>> > > created.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest using the separate exclude list for each platform. I
>> hope in
>> > this
>> > > case the test enabling for the different platforms will be easy.
>> Please,
>> > > look at it.
>> > >
>> > > Any comments are welcome :)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Vladimir
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 11/15/06, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Pavel, you are correct. Rana, sorry for confusion. Both issues
>> block
>> > > > passing class library unit tests.
>> > > >
>> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2070 [drlvm][thread]
>> > > > Unhandled exception in java.exe while java.util.jar module tests
>> > > > execution
>> > > >
>> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2073 [drlvm][unit]
>> > > > org.apache.harmony.beans.tests.java.beans.PersistenceDelegateTest
>> > > >
>> > > > I've used a debugger and caught an assert in
>> > > > exn_raise_by_name_internal for the second one. The first one
>> contains
>> > > > three diffrent issues, and I cannot say where exactly the
>> problem is.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 11/15/06, Pavel Afremov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > As I understand Alexey means HARMONY-2073, but not HARMONY-2070.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Alexei, is it correct? If not, could you clarify the point about
>> > > > > exn_raise_by_name_internal in your initial letter, please?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Pavel Afremov.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 11/8/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > OK thanks Pavel, I'll try the patch today.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Rana
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 11/8/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Rana.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I extend guard region as work around. It's only one way,
>> which
>> > "fix"
>> > > > SOE
>> > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > my SuSE Linux, without potential regression of your fix.
>> On my
>> > Linux
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > machine
>> > > > > > > violation access signals happen one page before protected
>> page
>> > on
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > stack.
>> > > > > > > It's it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I ran all tests, and everything was OK. But strange
>> misprint was
>> > > > fount
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > the new test.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So I attach new fixed patch.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pavel Afremov.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 11/8/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Though I tried several times, I could not repro 2070 or
>> > Alexey's
>> > > > > > > specific
>> > > > > > > > problems. The test attached to 2018 repros, and that I
>> think
>> > is
>> > > > > > enough.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > 1. The patch looks good, but I could not apply and try it
>> > since
>> > > > my
>> > > > > > > Linux
>> > > > > > > > box is down.
>> > > > > > > > 2. Did you run all tests ( smoke, cuint, kernel, and
>> > classlib )?
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Since
>> > > > > > > > this fully turns on lazy exceptions, we need to ensure that
>> > all
>> > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > pass,
>> > > > > > > > or at least have identical behaviour before and after the
>> > pacth.
>> > > > > > > > 3. Adding a finalizer based stack test to smoke is a good
>> > idea.
>> > > > > > > > 4. On Linux you extend the guard region up ( or down
>> > whatever )
>> > > > by a
>> > > > > > > > page. Did you find a good reason for it, or is this just
>> being
>> > > > > > careful?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Rana
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On 11/7/06, Pavel Afremov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Rana,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Everything is correct in you description, but it looks
>> like
>> > that
>> > > > *
>> > > > > > > > > HARMONY-2018* <
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2018>
>> > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > fix described bug. I think Alexei will have a chance to
>> > check
>> > > > it.
>
>
>
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
