Hello, Ilya, Stepan, yes, I confirm the Expected Failure List was not updated yes, so the * jdtcoremodel* failure is actually expected.
I also confirm I did not reproduce 3 new issues in *coreresources* suite. They also not reported in previous CC-results. So these may be intermittent failures. And *coreresources* does have dependency from D:\temp directory existance. I've got 3 issues on machine w/o drive D:. And I double checked then that these 3 issues are not reproducible on machine with D: drive (seems to be EUT issues). Thanks Vladimir P.S. I'll send the patch for EFL update soon. 2007/9/27, Ilya Berezhniuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I missed that testDeleteMultipleMembersFromVariousCUs test was not > added to EFL, and looked at wrong test in jdtcoremodel... > So there are only 3 actually unexpected failures which I still can't > reproduce... > > -- > > Ilya > > 2007/9/27, Ilya Berezhniuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hello Stepan, > > > > I tried to reproduce latest EUT 3.2/Windows results for r579330. > > The results are the following: > > - single unexpected failure in jdtcoremodel is stably reproducible on > > separate suite; I'm now investigating this. > > - 3 failures in coreresources suite did not appear on both separate > > suite run and whole suite run. > > > > AFAIK, Vladimir also reproduced jdtcoremodel failure and cannot > > reproduce those 3 failures. He got another failures because EUT tried > > to create temporary files on CDROM :) > > > > > > 2007/9/26, Vladimir Beliaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Is it possible to resolve it by simply increasing timeout? > > > > > > no, timeout does not help here: > > > > > > 1. this would increase the EUT running time from 8h to ... infinity > (which > > > is not helpful at all for daily testing of EUT) > > > > > > 2. I have an expirience of such slow jdtcorecompiler running - as a > result > > > the suite did not crash still the run took 4-6h (instead of 30-50 min) > and > > > half of 6'000 tests ended with error/failure - this is not acceptable > > > because these failures / error are still not reproducible on other > hosts, so > > > nothing in Harmony code to be fixed (still host configuration is to be > > > fixed). > > > > > > I can send an instruction of running > > > org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler.regression.TestAll separately (w/o > other > > > jdtcorecompile JUnit suites). Then you may try to run this EUT Suite > on > > > other machine to track the running speed. > > > > > > I have no idea of what may cause this suite running slow on particular > host. > > > May be the disk is close to be dead (still this would affect other > suites as > > > weel not only jdtcorecompiler one). > > > > > > Thanks > > > Vladimir Beliaev > > > > > > 2007/9/26, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > On 9/26/07, Vladimir Beliaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, Stepan, > > > > > > > > > > 1. org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler.regression.TestAll - the > issues > > > > is > > > > > not reproduced locally. I'm looking to output.txt > > > > > < > http://people.apache.org/~smishura/r579330/Linux_x86/eut/output.txt > > > > >from > > > > > EUT3.2/Linux run - it says this suite was killed by timeout: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible to resolve it by simply increasing timeout? > > > > > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > > eclipse-test: > > > > > [echo] *Running > > > > > org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler.regression.TestAll* > > > > > [java] Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2006 > The > > > > > Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable. > > > > > [java] java version "1.5.0" > > > > > [java] pre-alpha : not complete or compatible > > > > > [java] svn = r579330, (Sep 26 2007), Linux/ia32/gcc 3.3.3, > > > > release > > > > > build > > > > > [java] http://harmony.apache.org > > > > > [java] *Timeout: killed the sub-process* > > > > > > > > > > So looks like a host configyuration issues again... > > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > Here is a list of "configuration tricks" I know for EUT on > Linux/x86 > > > > (some > > > > > of them were noted by you to me): > > > > > > > > > > 1. the test host *must not be load *(CPU/disk must be used by EUT > only) > > > > - > > > > > EUT is sensetive to timeout. > > > > > 2. DISPLAY is set to other Linux host with pure X-server (not VNC, > > > > cygwin > > > > > X-server, Xvfb, etc.) > > > > > 3. -Duser.home=<my tmp-home with .subversion directory copied from > ~/.> > > > > (no > > > > > $HOME file collisions should happen) > > > > > 4. -Djava.io.tmpdir=<my tmp dir> (no $TMP file collisions should > happen) > > > > > 5. ulimit –n 65'536 (max number of open file handlers) > > > > > 6. mozilla is installed > > > > > 6.1 export MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME=/opt/mozilla/lib > > > > > 6.2 export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/mozilla/lib > > > > > > > > > > I'm still not sure this would help with slow running of > > > > > *jdtcorecompiler*suite. Let's try to get it resolved together. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Vladimir Beliaev > > > > > > > > > > 2007/9/26, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/25/07, Stepan Mishura wrote: > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > > I've compared testing status for the last snapshot r578410 [1] > with > > > > M2 > > > > > > [2][3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the following short status for failed suites: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Windows_x86: > > > > > > > * classlib: 2 tests from pack200 module fail on snapshot (but > pass > > > > > > > on debug build) > > > > > > > * Eclipse unit tests 3.2: there is no tests report like for > M3. The > > > > > > > pass rate was improved from 99.32%[3] to 99.7%[1] > > > > > > > * Eclipse unit tests 3.3 are new and the pass rate is 99.77%. > I > > > > > > > think is acceptable > > > > > > > * EGA x48 hours scenario fails. According to [4] it passed on > M2. > > > > > > > * Functional: need more analysis, currently I see that 2 > tests were > > > > > > > enabled and new 15 regressions. > > > > > > > * Geronimo: 2 regressions > > > > > > > * JDK tools: 1 test failed. It might be intermediate failure > - the > > > > > > > test failed due to timeout > > > > > > > * Reliability: 65 tests passed for M2 and 64 for M3. > Investigation > > > > > > > is required. > > > > > > > * Stress: 190 tests passed for M2 and 189 for M3. > Investigation is > > > > > > required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux_x86: > > > > > > > * classlib: 2 tests from pack200 (as for Windows), 1 luni > tests > > > > > > > failed and 1 crash of security test > > > > > > > * Eclipse unit tests 3.2: 2 suites crashed so pass rate is > 69.60%. > > > > I > > > > > > > assume this may be CC host configuration issue. Going to > > > > investigate. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking into EUT 3.2 results on Linux_x86 for r579330. > > > > > > The good news that crashes for the next suites disappeared: > > > > > > - org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.dom.RunAllTests > > > > > > - org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.model.AllJavaModelTests > > > > > > > > > > > > And the bad news there is one new suite crash: > > > > > > - org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler.regression.TestAll > > > > > > > > > > > > This results are pretty confusing for me. I believe that last > updates > > > > > > to classlib/drlvm/jdktool shouldn't influence on results in such > > > > > > dramatic way. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to admit that CC host configuration was changed a bit. > There is > > > > > > an assumption that the tests are sensitive to X-server. > (currently VNC > > > > > > is used). So X-server (SLES9) was configured on CC host and > runlevel > > > > > > was changed from 3 to 5. But IMHO it shouldn't affect current CC > > > > > > configuration (I didn't change it. i.e. VNC was used as usual) > and > > > > > > testing result as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Eclipse unit tests 3.3 are new and the pass rate is 96.47%. > I > > > > > > > think is acceptable > > > > > > > * EGA x48 hours scenario: the same as for Windows (scenario > fails > > > > on > > > > > > M3) > > > > > > > * Functional: need more analysis, similar to Windows - some > test > > > > are > > > > > > > passing now but there are new failures. > > > > > > > * Geronimo: 2 regressions (the same as for Windows) > > > > > > > * Reliability: need more analysis > > > > > > > * Stress: need more analysis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I remember Sean took pack200 tests. And Alexei Zakharov > took > > > > > > > security test crash. > > > > > > > I'm going to sort things out with Eclipse unit tests 3.2 crash > on > > > > > > > Linux. And to look info failed jdktools test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So volunteers are required for: EGAx48, Geronimo, functional, > > > > > > > reliability and stress suites. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also we have 2 JIRAs to be resolved for M3 under milstone > > > > unmblella[5]: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4844 > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4810 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r578410/index.html > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r551077/index.html > > > > > > > [3] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/milestones/M2 > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200706.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > > > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4843 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ilya > > > -- Vladimir Beliaev Intel Middleware Products Division
