BTW, Stepan, I have prepared a patch for the stress test suite BTI adapter. The patch delegates tool compilation from the adapter to the build file (tools are needed for a stand-alone mode as well), and adds invoking p-unit checkout target. Could you please look into it?
Thanks. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5048 On 11/1/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stepan, > Ok, I will live with these warnings produced by the harness. > > Thanks. > > > > > On 11/1/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Alexei, > > > > On 10/30/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stepan, > > > > > > You asked: > > > > What made them [fields] "obsolete"? > > > > > > Actually the thing I'm suggesting by my patch is to make these fields > > > "optional". > > > > This is not "true" - they are optional. It is possible to omit them in > > the test's description - the harness runs the test, only warning is > > printed. For example, if you omit 'testID' then exception is thrown > > and the test is not run. > > > > > I believe I may want to make Harmony becoming more > > > convenient for a test developer I am. > > > > > > The author field was made obsolete by Geir's decision to keep authors > > > outside of source code (remember removing Ivan Volosyuk from > > > interpreter sources?) This decision was discussed a bit, but there > > > were no strong arguments against. > > > > > > > IMO, 'authors' names in code source and 'authors' field in test's > > description are two different things. I wouldn't mix them. Yes, there > > is the agreement (OK to remove) about the first one and the second one > > hasn't been discussed before. > > > > > I don't see a reason of keeping date-of-creation attribute as a > > > mandatory field. The following argument is a bit stronger: this > > > argument is duplicated with another one and should be completely > > > removed. The first file modification is usually done at the Day of > > > Creation, and the current format allows several modification dates. > > > > > > > Again, I believe that if there is a reason to remove some feature then > > the removal should be entire and complete. We shouldn't remove only > > warnings and leave other debris of functionality in the harness. > > > > For example, currently the harness has the option to select tests for > > running based on authors name. If I want to run all tests created by > > you I should pass to the harness something like: "-execopt > > Selector:exclude:Author Fedotov". Also in this case a warning about > > tests that were not selected because of missing authors field is very > > helpful. And your patch removes it. The same for "creation-date". > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > BTW, to make this discussion a bit more interesting for techies, let > > > me add here a discussion of memory cleanup algorithm from our chat > > > with Andrew: > > > > > > Andrew: Does it make sense to invoke System.gc() multiple times to > > > release memory completely? > > > > > > me: I have the following assertion in my tests: allocated == finalized > > > and there is no other way to check that all objects are finalized than > > > to invoke gc and to check that amount of available memory no longer > > > increase (I also check that max chunk size stabilizes) > > > > > > Andrew: so to release memory completely, which approach is better? 1. > > > invoke gc multiple times; 2. gc, thread.sleep > > > > > > me: I believe I combine both: > > > sleep does actual finalization work :-) > > > gc() is for check > > > > > > > I'd like to add a couple of notes here: If you like to discuss stress > > tests details it is better to start new thread with corresponding > > topic. And before revealing private conversation details please make > > sure to get consent from all parties involved. > > > > Thanks, > > Stepan. > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > -- > With best regards, > Alexei, > ESSD, Intel > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
