[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3402?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13091592#comment-13091592
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3402:
-------------------------------------
patch makes sure you get some sort of seed in all situations, if we fail in
afterclass we don't actually know which test method is responsible (maybe
none!),
but it prints a "reproduce with (Hopefully)" in this case.
failing in LTC's tearDown() checks should now always give you a seed.
Here's what it looks like now with the same simulated situation: TestA has a
afterClass that opens a Directory, then calls fail()
In the Solr situation it should look better, since I hacked the Solr test
classes to set testsFailed = true if their afterClass checks fail, this way we
won't even bother trying to close the directory, but this is just to show it
still works even without that, and TestB passes normally.
{noformat}
junit-sequential:
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA
[junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 1, Time elapsed: 0.135 sec
[junit]
[junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
[junit] NOTE: reproduce with (hopefully): ant test -Dtestcase=TestA
-Dtests.seed=7360d49cf342a985:0:-184b15f6f34c023d
[junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
[junit] Testcase: org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA: FAILED
[junit]
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
[junit] at org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA.afterClass(TestA.java:12)
[junit]
[junit]
[junit] Testcase: org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA: Caused an ERROR
[junit] java.lang.AssertionError: directory of test was not closed, opened
from: org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA.afterClass(TestA.java:11)
[junit] java.lang.RuntimeException: java.lang.AssertionError: directory of
test was not closed, opened from:
org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA.afterClass(TestA.java:11)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase.afterClassLuceneTestCaseJ4(LuceneTestCase.java:462)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase.checkResourcesAfterClass(LuceneTestCase.java:519)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase.afterClassLuceneTestCaseJ4(LuceneTestCase.java:430)
[junit]
[junit]
[junit] TEST org.apache.lucene.foo.TestA FAILED
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.lucene.foo.TestB
[junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.006 sec
[junit]
[junit] Tests FAILED
{noformat}
> LuceneTestCase shouldn't go crazy if a test fails in an @AfterClass annotated
> method
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3402
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3402
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3402.patch
>
>
> An example can be seen here: http://sierranevada.servebeer.com/1314308641.log
> The general problem is this: the assertions and cleanups in lucenetestcase's
> afterclass should be reordered, and have better error handling.
> In this particular case these were the steps that happened:
> # AutoCommitTest didn't close its searchers, so SolrTestCaseJ4 threw an
> assertion exception in its @AfterClass method.
> # Because the searcher wasn't closed, LuceneTestCase threw an assertion
> exception about unclosed directories/file handles in its afterClass. Even
> though the test had already "failed" it ran this assertion because
> testsFailed is false, since our TestWatchMan isnt aware of failures that
> happen in @AfterClass methods :(
> # Because it threw this exception, it never made it to the part where it
> resets the random, so the next test blew up in its BeforeClass.
> To add insult to injury, all this happened but we didnt get a random seed
> printed, so we cant even hope to reproduce the situation.
> After discussion with hossman, we came up with some ideas on how to improve
> this, and I'm adding some i just thought of, too:
> # try to divide up these assertions and cleanups in LuceneTestCase: we could
> use multiple @AfterClass-annotated methods but then i'm not sure we can
> control the order, which is scary. But one safe thing to do is to put these
> pieces of code in little methods and afterclass can handle this stuff with
> try/finally.
> # think about exposing the testsFailed variable for subclasses that do
> assertions in their @AfterClasses. otherwise you might not get a random seed,
> which is bad.
> # think about upgrading junit, because I know from experimentation that the
> TestWatchMan (or whatever its replacement is) can "see more" of the test
> lifecycle and this would probably make a lot of this much cleaner.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
