On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Good point, thanks for solving the mystery. I've updated the test to not > depend on the hashmap order.
Cool. Works for me. :-) -- Martin Cooper > > Don > > > I'm also getting a failure on TestActionConfigMatcher (using Ant build): > > > > Name isn't correct > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Name isn't correct > > at > > org.apache.struts.config.TestActionConfigMatcher.testCheckSubstitutionsM > > atch(TestActionConfigMatcher.java:202) > > ... > > > > cfg.getName() is returning 'name2', but the test expects 'name' > > > > fConfigs contains: > > [0] = name2 > > [1] = name > > > > The problem seems to be that the test relies on the order of the array > > elements but ActionConfig stores the configs in a HashMap which does not > > return its values collection in a guaranteed order. I would have > > expected the failure to be intermittent, but it fails consistently for > > me. Maybe in practice the order is consistent for a platform, JDK, day > > of the week etc. etc. :-) > > > > As an experiment, I changed the HashMap to a TreeMap, and the tests > > pass. I don't know if this would have any knock on effects elsewhere > > though. Might be better to rethink the test so it doesn't rely on the > > ordering. Or even just drop that section since it's really only testing > > findForwardConfigs(), not the matcher. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: November 27, 2003 9:36 PM > >> To: Struts Developers List > >> Subject: Re: Maven test run > >> > >> > >> Hmmm...I just updated, uncommented those two lines, and ran "ant > >> test.junit" - all tests passed. Anyone else? > >> > >> Don > >> > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > >> > >> > When I run the maven jar target, the upload tests fail > >> > (MultipartTestSuite). > >> > > >> > But, when I run the ant test.junit test, only the > >> > TestActionConfigMatcher test fails. > >> > > >> > Is it me, or do others share this experience? > >> > > >> > If so, any ideas as to why this would be? > >> > > >> > -Ted. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
