Hahahaha...doh.  I've gotten those kinds of errors before on Windows
when I hadn't set git global EOL to "\n".  There's a chance that git
has converted the line endings in those test files to \r\n.  Can you
open the test files in a hex editor and see what the line endings look
like?

We need to improve documentation on line endings on Windows.

On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:40 AM Luís Filipe Nassif <lfcnas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just got these build failures on Windows 10 JDK 11:
>
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   TextAndCSVParserTest.testSubclassingMimeTypesRemain:217
> expected:<...-vcalendar; charset=[ISO-8859-1]> but was:<...-vcalendar;
> charset=[windows-1252]>
> [ERROR]   TXTParserTest.testSubclassingMimeTypesRemain:299
> expected:<...-vcalendar; charset=[ISO-8859-1]> but was:<...-vcalendar;
> charset=[windows-1252]>
>
>
> Em seg., 2 de mai. de 2022 às 08:15, Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org>
> escreveu:
>
> > Thank you, Tilman!
> >
> > I'll give it a few more hours in case anyone wants to -1 it.
> >
> > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 6:20 AM Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 👋 Go with what we have
> > > Tilman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Original-Nachricht ---
> > > Von: Tim Allison
> > > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tika 1.28.2 Candidate #2
> > > Datum: 02. Mai 2022, 12:15
> > > An: <dev@tika.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I confirmed my memory of TikaServerIntegrationTest. The difference is
> > > that in 1.x, we were still using threads to start the server and then
> > > hoping that<http://thread.interrupt> () actually shut the process down
> > in a
> > > reasonable amount of time. In 2.x, we're starting processes and then
> > > force quitting those after each test. In my experience, this got rid
> > > of the flaky tests in 2.x
> > >
> > > We didn't change any of the underlying server logic in 1.x. This is a
> > > problem of flaky tests.
> > >
> > > Given that we have the 1.x branch through September, I'll convert the
> > > thread based tests to process based tests shortly. The question is:
> > > should we roll an rc3 or go with what we have.
> > >
> > > Thank you, all.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 9:10 AM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org
> > > <mailto:talli...@apache.org> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly my understanding as well. That test is not flaky in 2x
> > > > because of modifications I made to the integration tests in 2x.
> > > >
> > > > In 2x, the Solr tests can be flaky, and there's an open issue for
> > > > that. I don't like flaky tests. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 6:28 AM Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de
> > > <mailto:thaush...@t-online.de> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I had successful builds with jdk11 and jdk18. I think this is
> > more
> > > a
> > > > > problem with the test than with the software. I remember when I
> > started
> > > > > with tika I wanted to make it possible to have tika1 and 2 work in
> > > > > parallel and never managed to do it and then moved on to other
> > things.
> > > > > Something about unreliability of the server starting and stopping.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tilman
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 30.04.2022 um 11:29 schrieb Tilman Hausherr:
> > > > > > [ERROR] Tests run: 12, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 2, Time
> > > > > > elapsed: 102.543 s <<< FAILURE! - in
> > > > > ><http://org.apache.tika.server.TikaServerIntegrationTest>
> > > > > > [ERROR]
> > > > > >
> > > <
> > http://org.apache.tika.server.TikaServerIntegrationTest.testSameServerIdAfterOOM
> > >
> > > > > > Time elapsed: 5.694 s <<< ERROR!
> > > > > ><http://java.lang.IllegalStateException> : Not a JSON Object: null
> > > > > > at
> > > > > >
> > > <http://org.apache.tika.server.TikaServerIntegrationTest.getServerId
> > (TikaServerIntegrationTest.java:280>
> > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > at
> > > > > >
> > > <
> > http://org.apache.tika.server.TikaServerIntegrationTest.testSameServerIdAfterOOM
> > (TikaServerIntegrationTest.java:208>
> > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > W10, jdk11, maven 3.8.5
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >

Reply via email to