Thanks, Ceki. I'll give it try in the 1.3 jvm I installed last night to make sure it at least passes the tests someplace.
How do you test the 1.2 release under jvm 1.1/1.2 to make sure it is happy there? Do you just hand-run some custom exe to make sure it comes up and runs, etc? I don't think that moving the immunity code into the 1.2.11 release is an option right now. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:44 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: JUnit Errors in 1.2.11 build > > > Missed your first message with the output. If my memory serves me > correctly, immunity to the jvm's reflection implementation was added in > log4j 1.3. The tests for 1.2 need to be run on JDK 1.3. Alternatively, you > can retrofit the immunity granting code from the 1.3 branch. > > At 06:37 PM 6/2/2005, you wrote: > > >Mark, > > > >The tests are supposed to be immune to variations in reflection > >implementation. Do you have the output of the failed test? > > > > > >At 06:31 PM 6/2/2005, Mark Womack wrote: > >>Ant 1.6.4, jvm Sun 1.4.2_07 (though I think _06 has the same issue). I > >>think I am using junit 1.3.8, but since there are no identifying marks > in > >>the .jar file (annoying), it is hard to tell exactly. > >> > >>I agree that the exact stack trace is going to be fragile, left to the > whims > >>of the jvm reflection implementation and the underlying junit > >>implementation. > >> > >>I am just trying to make sure that there is not something wacky with my > >>setup since I spent time upgrading it, etc. I can always change the > witness > >>files. > >> > >>Maybe I should look at the Gump setup so that I can see why it is not > >>failing on these tests? > >> > >>-Mark > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:19 PM > >> > To: Log4J Developers List > >> > Subject: Re: JUnit Errors in 1.2.11 build > >> > > >> > > >> > On Jun 2, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Mark Womack wrote: > >> > > >> > > I am running the test cases against the 1.2.11 code, and the > >> > > minimum case fails right off the bat: > >> > > > >> > > Minimum: > >> > > [junit] Running org.apache.log4j.MinimumTestCase > >> > > [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: > >> > > 0.501 sec > >> > > [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.log4j.MinimumTestCase > >> > > [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: > >> > > 0.501 sec > >> > > [junit] ------------- Standard Output --------------- > >> > > [junit] Files [output/filtered] and [witness/simple] differ on > >> > > line 28 > >> > > [junit] One reads: [ at > >> > > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)]. > >> > > [junit] Other reads:[ at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke > >> > > (Native Method)]. > >> > > [junit] ------------- ---------------- --------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > There are a couple of issues, your JVM uses 3 sun.reflect calls when > >> > the reference uses one java.lang.reflect call and Ant has added > >> > another layer. If the number of calls in the stack were equal then > >> > it might be fairly simple to add another regex transform (like > >> > LineNumberFilter and AbsoluteDateTimeFilter) that would translate > >> > sun.reflect... into the same calls as in the witness file. However, > >> > things probably get complicated by the mismatch in number of calls in > >> > the stack. It might be possible to write a regex transform that > >> > matches one line and emits multiple lines which would suggest > >> > rewriting the witness file with the lengthier stack trace and then > >> > write a regex transform that converts the shorter into the longer > one. > >> > > >> > I would think the Ant call depth would be constant for any particular > >> > version of Ant and am surprised that we haven't heard a complaint > >> > from Gump on that one. The call stack on a reflecting method > >> > invocation is apparently and not surprising JVM specific. The JUnit > >> > stack would also be subject to change but fortunately for this test, > >> > its depth doesn't appear to have changed. > >> > > >> > What JVM and Ant version are you using? > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- > >Ceki Gülcü > > > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
