Once again my "run your tests twice, once with coverage and once without" advice catches another real bug.
I missed ApacheCon when it was over here.... and I don't see a chance to go travelling any time soon 2008/9/25 Edelson, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BINGO!!!!! > > Was actually the LHS class (but once I narrowed it down to two classes, > wasn't that hard to figure out). > > Nicely played sir. I owe you several beverages of your choice. ApacheCon? > > Justin > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Thu 9/25/2008 4:09 PM > > *To:* user@mojo.codehaus.org > *Subject:* Re: [mojo-user] test pass normally, but fail under cobertura > > I wonder if you have duplicate classes on your classpath? > > It may be that one set of them is resolving in one order while the other > set it resolving in the other. > > Also doesn't Spring do some sort of classloader isolation... > > It's looking like it's probably a problem (unrelated to coverage) that has > been exposed by running tests with coverage.... now if only you can figure > out what the problem is! > > I'd start be checking if multiple jars in your dependency classpath define > the class on the RHS of the instanceof expression > > 2008/9/25 Edelson, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Good idea. Emma shows the same behavior. I'll try Clover next. >> >> The documentation of the Emma plugin is incorrect. Posted a patch as >> MOJO-1234. Would highly recommend someone apply the patch and do a >> site-deploy. >> >> Justin >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Sent:* Thu 9/25/2008 3:10 PM >> >> *To:* user@mojo.codehaus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [mojo-user] test pass normally, but fail under cobertura >> >> Any chance you could give it a poke with emma or clover (they've a 30 >> day eval license for free) >> >> It might reveal if it's the instrumentation per se that is the problem or >> if it's limited to cobertura >> >> 2008/9/25 Edelson, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> See my other email about the instanceof problem. I don't see how this >>> is a concurrency problem. It's the test on this line: >>> http://fisheye1.atlassian.com/browse/springframework/spring/src/org/springframework/beans/factory/support/AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.java?r=1.182#l1363 >>> behaving >>> differently. >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *Sent:* Thu 9/25/2008 12:21 PM >>> >>> *To:* user@mojo.codehaus.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [mojo-user] test pass normally, but fail under cobertura >>> >>> Noooo >>> >>> have you got parallel threads in your code? >>> >>> bet you have even if you thing you have not! >>> >>> bet you have not read Java Concurrency In Practice and have an unintended >>> synchronization side-effect that is currently letting your tests pass on >>> Sun's JVM... but they may fail on JRocket or IBM or when instrumented with >>> emma/clover/ or cobertura >>> >>> 2008/9/25 Edelson, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>>> Thanks Stephen. >>>> >>>> Pretty sure it's not a timeout. >>>> >>>> I agree that tests should be able to be run any number of times. And in >>>> fact "mvn clean test test test test" works fine. It's "mvn >>>> cobertura:cobertura" which doesn't - and that only runs tests once. >>>> >>>> Justin >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> *Sent:* Thu 9/25/2008 3:09 AM >>>> *To:* user@mojo.codehaus.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [mojo-user] test pass normally, but fail under cobertura >>>> >>>> I have seen tests fail under cobertura when: >>>> >>>> 1. Tests have timeouts >>>> >>>> 2. Tests make incorrect assumptions about how the JVM memory model and >>>> synchronization work (or don't) >>>> >>>> This second one is why I always say run your tests twice ;-) >>>> >>>> 2008/9/25 Edelson, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>>> I've been struggling for the past 2 days with a set of Spring-based >>>>> integration tests that pass when run normally (i.e. mvn test), but fail >>>>> when >>>>> run using the cobertura plugin. >>>>> >>>>> I recognize this is a shot in the dark, but if anyone has any ideas on >>>>> things I can try, I'd appreciate it. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically, I'd be interested in any differences in the classpath >>>>> between a normal test run and the cobertura test run. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Justin >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
