On 20 Feb 2014, at 13:32, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 Someone should make a choice... > 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 >> >
