hmm, actually the html report (and generate-test-reports) displays
this information nicely so i don't know if this is necessary.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Sami Siren ssi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
While looking at some of the test failures it occurred to me that it
would be great to have
[junit4] Suite: org.apache.solr.analysis.TestKeepFilterFactory
[junit4] Completed on J0 in 0.22s, 1 test
If that also had a time stamp when the test started it would be, in
some cases, helpful to see what other tests were running at the same
The event log contains this information, it's
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Dawid Weiss
dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl wrote:
[junit4] Suite: org.apache.solr.analysis.TestKeepFilterFactory
[junit4] Completed on J0 in 0.22s, 1 test
If that also had a time stamp when the test started it would be, in
some cases, helpful to see what
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Dawid Weiss
dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl wrote:
So how about if something similar was printed from different aspect:
NOTE: All tests that were running at the same time: [TestA, TestB, TestC]
I think this would be noisy -- if you have multiple jvms it's normal
This would be visible only for failed tests (no point in printing it
for anything else)
Yes, but it'd require higher-level analysis (cross-jvm). Another
element of difficulty is that I also had a plan to distribute suites
physically to different machines at some point (and the overlap
wouldn't
Message-
From: dawid.we...@gmail.com [mailto:dawid.we...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Dawid Weiss
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:11 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible test framework improvement
This would be visible only for failed tests (no point in printing it
for anything
: dawid.we...@gmail.com [mailto:dawid.we...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Dawid Weiss
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:11 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible test framework improvement
This would be visible only for failed tests (no point in printing it
for anything else)
Yes
So I think the only likely possibilities for test interference across
JVMS are things like using same temp directory outside of the source
tree or under some svn-ignore'd part of the source tree, or using the
same network port numbers, etc.
Temp directories shouldn't be a problem if they're
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Dawid Weiss
dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl wrote:
So I think the only likely possibilities for test interference across
JVMS are things like using same temp directory outside of the source
tree or under some svn-ignore'd part of the source tree, or using the
foo-dependency-1.0.jar does stuff with java.io.tmpdir it could create
an issue correct? or does the test runner also set this sysprop to the
sandbox dir for slave jvms (if it doesn't already but can, that
would be very cool, more safety).
True, we could alter java.io.tmpdir. There is actually
: In my opinion, the separate JVMs should not produce test failures or
: affect each other, because every JVM gets its own temporary directory
: for running tests and creating indexes.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that opinion -- but having a
common opinion doesn't magically make
ie: tests in seperate JVMs shouldn't affect eachother, but in spite of
best intentions they might, and having timestamps would help discover
that.
They do -- look at the html report, it contains timestamps. I'll add
them to the txt report in the next version.
Dawid
12 matches
Mail list logo
