Ok. I am starting to think this could be a IBM JVM thing after finding this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7211
Could it be that something changed between trunk and .5 that caused this issue to manifest itself in different ways? In .5, we just got the wrong answer and in trunk, we are getting this permission issue? marc On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > That's no good. Sounds like some local file system permissions issue? Are > there any restrictions on /tmp? maybe blow away anything that looks Hadoop- > or Mahout-related there. > > You can dig into core/target/surefire-reports and find a file with all > output for every test. It will surely have more detail on what happened. > > (Or you can perhaps run this test alone in your IDE; that's what I do.) > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Marc Millstone <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > In the output of the failed unit test results, the reason for failure is > > given as > > > > > > testLoad(org.apache.mahout.df.mapreduce.partial.InterResultsTest): > > com.sun.security.auth.UnixPrincipal > > testStore(org.apache.mahout.df.mapreduce.partial.InterResultsTest): > > org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation (initialization failure) > > > testProcessOutput(org.apache.mahout.df.mapreduce.partial.PartialBuilderTest): > > org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation (initialization failure) > > testStep0Mapper(org.apache.mahout.df.mapreduce.partial.Step0JobTest): > > org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation (initialization failure) > > > > ..... > > > > In .5 the unit test failure was > > > > > testStartParallelFPGrowth(org.apache.mahout.fpm.pfpgrowth.PFPGrowthTest): > > expected:<{[D=0, E=1, A=0, B=0, C]=1}> but was:<{[A=0, B=0, C=1, D=0, > > E]=1}> > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yeah that's not it. It's just internal exceptions because a test > failed. > > > > > > What were you referring to by > > > "org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation > > > (initialization failure)" ? That sounds closer to a problem. > > > > > >
