This test is really fragile... If you look at the code you'll see that it has already been patched to cope with some defects under linux.
- Maybe one try is to increase the wait time? - make sure the fork happens at higher priority than the surrounding thread - skip it :P On 2014-02-20, at 11:09, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > Camillo (as you wrote this stuff), > > The test below often fails on the CI servers (as now again in the last two > builds), timing tests are brittle there. > > Is this test necessary the way it is written now, what do you think ? > > Sven > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: [regression reporter]regression occurred >> Date: 26 Jan 2014 16:17:25 GMT+1 >> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >> >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-A-L/label=win/891/ >> >> 1 regressions found. >> KernelTests.Methods.BlockClosureTest.testOnForkErrorTakesLessThanOneSecond >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
