[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1872?page=comments#action_12438272 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-1872: ----------------------------------------
Hi John, These changes look fine, and I will commit them if you like, since it is just a rearrangement of the test. I'm a little unclear what the benefit to testing on the 10.1 codeline will be. Are there failures on 10.1 on a particular platform/VM combination that fail without these changes? Or is it just so that memory profiling using this test is more consistent across branches? I've tried to follow all the discussion in DERBY-1564 and elsewhere, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't also make sense to also port the DERBY-1641 (and maybe also DERBY-1091) harness changes to 10.1 so that we can be sure of the jvmflags that are being passed to the test? Anyway, I'll wait to hear if you have any comments, otherwise I'll commit these changes tomorrow. > Backport lang/wisconsin.java at 10.2.0.4-alpha to the 10.1 branch > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-1872 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1872 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Test > Components: Test > Affects Versions: 10.1.3.1 > Environment: N/A > Reporter: John H. Embretsen > Assigned To: John H. Embretsen > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 10.1.3.2 > > Attachments: port-wisconsin-from-10.2.0.4-to-10.1_v2.stat, > port-wisconsin-from-10.2.0.4-to-10.1_v2.zip > > > Investigations relating to DERBY-1564 ("wisconsin.java test failed in > DerbyNet or DerbyNetClient frameworks, VM for network server got > OutOfMemoryError") revealed that comparing memory usage for the > lang/wisconsin.[java|sql] test in 10.1.x versus 10.2.x was like comparing > apples and oranges. After the 10.1 branch was created, several updates were > made to the wisconsin test in trunk that were not backported to 10.1, e.g: > * giving the optimizer unlimited time to choose query plans > * compressing the tables to avoid the instabilities reported in DERBY-937 > Backporting the test will make it less unfair to compare 10.1 vs. 10.2 (or > trunk) test results and memory usage, and it will make it easier to determine > if failures (such as DERBY-1564) are regressions or not. On the other hand, > other differences between the branches that may influence the test will > remain, so this will not be a wonder cure. > The failures seen in DERBY-1564 were mainly caused by bugs (DERBY-1091, > DERBY-1614) in the test harness, causing the wisconsin test for the 10.2.0.4 > snapshot to run with low memory settings. These issues have been fixed. > The most practical backporting approach will probably be to take the > wisconsin test as it was in the 10.2.0.4-snapshot (SVN revision 423199), and > port it to the current 10.1 branch. Other changes have been made to the > wisconsin test in trunk/10.2 after 10.2.0.4, but to avoid various > dependencies (e.g. DERBY-1609), these should not be backported. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
