On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Running org.apache.james.experimental.imapserver.ExperimentalRenameTest >>> from >>> my eclipse I have failures on the Rename tests: >>> >>> RenameHierarchy.test >>> >>> Here is the debug output after I activated continueAfterFailure: >>> ------------- >>> Got <tag>: A6 >>> Got <command>: LIST >>> Created command class >>> org.apache.james.imapserver.codec.decode.imap4rev1.ListCommandParser >>> >>> Location: >>> /org/apache/james/test/functional/imap/scripts/RenameHierarchy.test:27 >>> LastClientMsg: A6 LIST "" "*" >>> Expected: '\* LIST \(\) "\." "one"' >>> Actual : '* LIST () "." "selected"' >>> >>> Location: >>> /org/apache/james/test/functional/imap/scripts/RenameHierarchy.test:28 >>> LastClientMsg: A6 LIST "" "*" >>> Expected: '\* LIST \(\) "\." "one\.two"' >>> Actual : '* LIST () "." "one"' >>> >>> Location: >>> /org/apache/james/test/functional/imap/scripts/RenameHierarchy.test:29 >>> LastClientMsg: A6 LIST "" "*" >>> Expected: '\* LIST \(\) "\." "one\.two\.three"' >>> Actual : '* LIST () "." "one.two"' >>> >>> Location: >>> /org/apache/james/test/functional/imap/scripts/RenameHierarchy.test:30 >>> LastClientMsg: A6 LIST "" "*" >>> Expected: '\* LIST \(\) "\." "one\.two\.three\.four"' >>> Actual : '* LIST () "." "one.two.three"' >>> >>> Location: >>> /org/apache/james/test/functional/imap/scripts/RenameHierarchy.test:31 >>> LastClientMsg: A6 LIST "" "*" >>> Expected: '\* LIST \(\) "\." "selected"' >>> Actual : '* LIST () "." "one.two.three.four"' >>> Got <tag>: A7 >>> ----- >>> >>> It seems it expect: >>> one >>> one.two >>> one.two.three >>> one.two.three.four >>> selected >>> and instead it receive >>> selected >>> one >>> one.two >>> one.two.three >>> one.two.three.four >>> >>> Is sorting something under control for the test? >> >> debatable :-) >> >> i favour sorting since some clients may have issues if the ordering is >> unreliable > > Sorry but I'm not sure I understand: do you think it is a bug in the tested > code or a bug in the tests? Is it ok that in my environment the server > returns selected before one while your environment use one before selected? > Is sorting something environment related or something simply not > defined/enforced at code level and depending on the derby queries results?
it's debatable whether it's a bug in the tests it's better to sort the results anyway so that's the change i'll make - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
