Adrian, I accept that there is a difference, but using vastly is an exaggeration.
Are we going to provide a fix for this issue, whereby end-users can tweak this in there own environment (by e.g. a configuration setting), or are we just trying to find an optimal number so that these test don't fail anymore? How dependent on the environment is OFBiz regarding these unit test? Regards, Pierre 2012/4/30 Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> > The two are vastly different. Configuring ports is something the end user > is responsible for. Cache unit tests that are failing need to be fixed. > Configuration != failed unit tests. > > -Adrian > > > On 4/30/2012 12:58 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> This issue seems to be a same kind of problem as the change of test ports >> in trunk. >> >> Why are we so adament that end users should and must apply patches in >> their >> own test environment regarding test ports, while we - on the other hand - >> are trying to fix something in trunk that is along the same line? >> >> Regards, >> >> Pierre >> >> 2012/4/30 Adrian >> Crum<adrian.crum@sandglass-**software.com<adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >> > >> >> I will give it a try, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> On 4/30/2012 12:42 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>> If, as Adam mentioned, it is an issue caused by the time-slice in your >>>> box, then setting a greater timeout may fix the issue... if you will be >>>> able to make it work with, let's say 600 ms (or even 1s) then I would >>>> like >>>> to commit the change to make the test a bit more robust (even if it >>>> will be >>>> slower). >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>> On 4/30/2012 10:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried experimenting with the sleep timing and I also replaced the >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thread.sleep call with a safer version, but the tests still failed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> interesting... but if you change the Thread.sleep timeout from 200 >>>>>> to >>>>>> 2000 it works, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> I changed it to 300. By the way, the test finally passed for the >>>>> first >>>>> time when I had another non-OFBiz process running at the same time >>>>> that was >>>>> making heavy use of the hard disk. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
