Hi,

Tested with the changes of your PR multiple times with Win7-64bit and JDK7
and JDK8 without any issues.

Cheers
Andreas



2017-10-11 10:03 GMT+02:00 Bruno P. Kinoshita <
brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid>:

> Done.
> https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/28
>
> Tested on Windows 10 + JDK8, and Ubuntu LTS + JDK8.
> Would be good if someone else with a Windows version could try it too, and
> if others could have a look at the suggested solution in the pull request
> to see if there's a better way of doing it.
> CheersBruno
>       From: Bruno P. Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID>
>  To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
>  Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2017 12:43 PM
>  Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] Test failures on Windows
>
> Still investigating. Trying to isolate the problem
> https://github.com/kinow/commons-collections/tree/COLLECTIONS-661-1
>
> No luck so far. I have an environment where it happens over 90% of the
> time. Tried debugging a few times, adding some sysout statements to see if
> there was anything suspect... yesterday enabled findbugs in test to look
> for any issue in the test classes. Nothing yet.
>
> Bruno
>
>       From: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>  To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
>  Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2017 12:13 PM
>  Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] Test failures on Windows
>
> Where are we on this one?
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Pascal Schumacher <
> pascalschumac...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Looks like the random failures are not limited to window. The travis
> build
> > (ubuntu), just failed with 44 failures, e.g.
> >
> > AbstractMultiValuedMapTest$TestMultiValuedMapAsMap>AbstractM
> > apTest.testMapToString:745->AbstractMapTest.verify:1947->
> AbstractMapTest.verifyMap:1958
> > hashCodes should be the same expected:<205172737> but was:<9372706>
> >
> >
> > see: https://travis-ci.org/apache/commons-collections/jobs/282169803
> >
> >
> > Am 28.09.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Andreas Kuhtz:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 2017-09-27 22:28 GMT+02:00 Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> Forgot to mention something important. When I was debugging the hash
> >>> tests, they would pretty much always pass.
> >>>
> >>> But if I ran the tests normally in maven or eclipse they would always
> >>> fail.
> >>>
> >>> Debugging adds a small overhead I think, that could be slowing down
> some
> >>> part of the code with a concurrency issue?
> >>>
> >>> That's an explanation. If I start a Virtualbox instance that prepares
> >> some
> >> load I can see the tests pass under Java 9 ... I had the Virtualbox
> >> running
> >> yesterday when the tests passed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just in case it helps...
> >>>
> >>> Interesting this surefire configuration Andreas. Do you have more
> >>> information about it? Is it something we may have to worry about in
> >>> components that use locale and jvm 9?
> >>>
> >>> I ran into an issue with the language selection dialog of izpack and
> >> found
> >> that this configuration solved the problem there.
> >> It's noted in the release notes of Java 9:
> >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/9-relnote-
> >> issues-3704069.html#JDK-8008577
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 at 4:45, Andreas Kuhtz
> >>> <andreas.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm running Win7 and with "mvn clean verify". Checkout master.
> >>>
> >>> I got the hash code errors, too. But sometimes the tests pass, the next
> >>> time they failed with 44 failures (the hash code verification).
> >>>
> >>> As I'm not sure if my antivirus kicks in and keep some files in the
> >>> target
> >>> dir, I ran "mvn clean" and after that "mvn clean verify".
> >>> But now I have the 44 failures with jdk-1.7.0_67, jdk-1.8.0_131 and
> 9+181
> >>>
> >>> Gary:
> >>> To get around the issue with ServiceConfiguration sun.util.locale...  I
> >>> added the following profile to the pom.xml. After that I only got the
> 44
> >>> errors (hash code) as with Java 7 and 8.
> >>>
> >>>      <profile>
> >>>        <id>jdk9-build</id>
> >>>        <activation>
> >>>          <jdk>9</jdk>
> >>>        </activation>
> >>>        <build>
> >>>          <plugins>
> >>>            <plugin>
> >>>              <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
> >>>              <configuration>
> >>>                <argLine>-Djava.locale.providers=COMPAT</argLine>
> >>>              </configuration>
> >>>            </plugin>
> >>>          </plugins>
> >>>        </build>
> >>>      </profile>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure if I can help more, but if you need more info just let me
> >>> know.
> >>>
> >>> Andreas
> >>>
> >>> 2017-09-27 19:10 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Using git master and 'mvn clean verify', on Windows 10, with Java 7, I
> >>>>
> >>> get
> >>>
> >>>> 44 failures, and I think this is all/mostly hash code problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> With Java 8, all tests pass.
> >>>>
> >>>> With Java 9, I get ONE failure: ListIteratorWrapperTest.
> testRemove:116
> >>>> ╗
> >>>> ServiceConfiguration sun.util.locale....
> >>>>
> >>>> If I checkout the 4.1 tag and use Java 7, I get 44 failures. ARG! What
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>> heck?
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> who can help with the test failures on Windows? I’d like to push out
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> next release soon to get Collections Java 9 ready. I don’t have access
> >>>>>
> >>>> to a
> >>>>
> >>>>> Windows installation and I don’t feel like debugging inside a VM :o)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to