On 28 August 2015 at 14:40, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/28/2015 11:35 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I have put together a first spin for a 0.5.0 Qpid JMS client release, >> please test it and vote accordingly. >> >> The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/jms/0.5.0-rc1/ >> >> Those files and the other maven artifacts are also staged for now at: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1044 > > > mvn clean install gave me one test failure: > >> Results : >> >> Failed tests: >> >> JmsExpiredMessageConsumptionTest.testConsumerReceivePrefetchZeroMessageExpiredInFlight:254 >> expected:<[expire]d message> but was:<[vali]d message> >> >> Tests run: 403, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5 >> >> [INFO] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> [INFO] Reactor Summary: >> [INFO] >> [INFO] QpidJMS ........................................... SUCCESS >> [14.132s] >> [INFO] QpidJMS Client .................................... SUCCESS >> [1:04.875s] >> [INFO] QpidJMS Discovery Library ......................... SUCCESS >> [12.862s] >> [INFO] QpidJMS Broker Interop Tests ...................... SUCCESS >> [0.059s] >> [INFO] QpidJMS ActiveMQ Interop Tests .................... FAILURE >> [8:22.792s] >> [INFO] QpidJMS Examples .................................. SKIPPED >> [INFO] QpidJMS Docs ...................................... SKIPPED >> [INFO] Apache Qpid JMS ................................... SKIPPED >> [INFO] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> [INFO] BUILD FAILURE >> [INFO] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> [INFO] Total time: 9:56.805s >> [INFO] Finished at: Fri Aug 28 14:27:44 BST 2015 >> [INFO] Final Memory: 24M/128M >> [INFO] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
Looking at it this it appears to be a problem with the test itelf, where it could be susceptible to slowdown of the broker interactions when run on slowers machines. I actually already mentioned to Tim earlier in the week that I might convert those particular set of tests so they dont use a broker, this would be another reason to. >From the time taken listed it looks like the machine you are using is possibly very slow. I havent seen this test fail personally or on the various slow CI systems they are running on, so I don't think I would class it as a blocker. Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
