That's a good point. We will also investigate that avenue.

Anything in a static var would also be an issue.

- Brett

On 10/18/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/16/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "reinstalled"?  Is that related to m2 install?
> >
> > Yes, m2 install on a plugin that is already loaded will mean the next
> > time it is used, it will be reloaded (by checking the file timestamp).
> >
> > >
> > > I noticed that there is never any OutOfMemoryError in a local module
> > > project build, even when the top level project reactor build does
> > > throw an OutOfMemoryError.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not that big - only 4 modules, and no additional "sub-modules".  There
> > > are 5 custom plugins too, giving a total of 22 custom goal executions
> > > during the reactor build.
> >
> > That seems unusual - m2 itself has a much bigger build. Is it possible
> > that your unit tests leak memory? Currently they are not forked, so
> > leaky tests will cause problems in a big reactor.
> >
> > I believe Cocoon had similar problems and we are going to look into it
> > in the next couple of weeks, but the tests would be the first thing to
> > check - is it all ok if -Dmaven.test.skip=true is used?
>
> Thanks for the tip, Brett.  Disabling the tests did allow the build to
> succeed, and leaving the tests in place still causes the
> OutOfMemoryError, even on the 2.0-RC.
>
> I would like to better understand how (not) to write a leaky test. :-)
>
> My understanding is that each JUnit test is a separate instance of the
> test class, with independent setup and teardown.  Suppose that some
> Object created during setup is not nulled out in teardown, then that
> would be a leak of private instance state inside the test class
> instance.
>
> I am wondering how this could lead to a real leak unless the test
> execution framework (surefire) is holding onto all the test instances
> even after testing has completed.  If that is the case, wouldn't it
> also be a leak in surefire?
>
> In the meantime, I'll investigate to discover the leaks in our unit tests. :-)
>
> Kind Regards,
> John Fallows.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to