More details: it is org/apache/harmony/security/tests/java/security/SecureRandom2Test.java test. At present time it has 2 failing tests with messages about SHA1PRNG algorithm (no support for SHA1PRNG provider). Looks like it is valid tests for non implemented functionality, but, I'm not sure what to do with such TestCase(s): comment these 2 tests or move them into separate TestCase. Ideas?
By the way, probably, it worth reviewing *all* excluded TestCases and: 1. Unexclude if all tests pass. 2. Report bug and provide patch for test to make it passing if it failed due to bug in test. 3. Report bug (and provide patch) for implementation to make tests passing, if it was/is bug in implementation and no such issue in JIRA. 4. Specify reasons for excluding TestCases in exclude list to make further clean-up process easier. 5. Review results of this exclude list clean-up activity and then decide what to do with the rest failing tests. I can do it starting next week. Do you think it worth doing? Thanks, Vladimir On 7/6/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did the TestCase run without a failure? If it didn't, then I would ask for you to attempt to fix it and post the patch and the patch to enable it. If it did pass, then just post a patch to enable it or just submit the issue as ask it to be removed from the exclude list. If the test is failing because of a bug, then log an issue about the bug and try to fix the issue. -Nathan > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ivanov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests > > Yesterday I tried to add a regression test to existing in security module > TestCase, but, found that the TestCase is in exclude list. I had to > un-exclude it, run, check my test passes and exclude the TestCase again - > it > was a little bit inconvenient, besides, my new valid (I believe) > regression > test will go directly to exclude list after integration... > > I see that we are near to decision what to do with failing tests. > Am I right that we are at the point of agreement on the following?: > > There could be two groups of failing tests: > *Tests that never passed. > *Tests that recently started failing. > > Test that never passed should be stored in TestCases with suffix "Fail" ( > StringFailTest.java for example). They are subject for review and either > deletion or fixing or fixing implementation if they find a bug in API > implementation. > There should be 0 tests that recently started failing. If such test > appears > it should be fixed within 24h, otherwise, commit which introduced the > failure will be rolled back. > Right? > > Thanks, Vladimir > > On 7/4/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Nathan Beyer wrote: > > > Based on what I've seen of the excluded tests, category 1 is the > > predominate > > > case. This could be validated by looking at old revisions in SVN. > > > > I'm sure that is true, I'm just saying that the build system 'normal' > > state is that all enabled tests pass. My concern was over your > > statement you have had failing tests for months. > > > > What is failing for you now? > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> Is this the case where we have two 'categories'? > > >> > > >> 1) tests that never worked > > >> > > >> 2) tests that recently broke > > >> > > >> I think that a #2 should never persist for more than one build > > >> iteration, as either things get fixed or backed out. I suppose then > we > > > > >> are really talking about category #1, and that we don't have the > > "broken > > >> window" problem as we never had the window there in the first place? > > >> > > >> I think it's important to understand this (if it's actually true). > > >> > > >> geir > > >> > > >> > > >> Tim Ellison wrote: > > >>> Nathan Beyer wrote: > > >>>> How are other projects handling this? My opinion is that tests, > which > > > > >> are > > >>>> expected and know to pass should always be running and if they fail > > and > > >> the > > >>>> failure can be independently recreated, then it's something to be > > >> posted on > > >>>> the list, if trivial (typo in build file?), or logged as a JIRA > > issue. > > >>> Agreed, the tests we have enabled are run on each build (hourly if > > >>> things are being committed), and failures are sent to commit list. > > >>> > > >>>> If it's broken for a significant amount of time (weeks, months), > then > > > > >> rather > > >>>> than excluding the test, I would propose moving it to a "broken" or > > >>>> "possibly invalid" source folder that's out of the test path. If it > > >> doesn't > > >>>> already have JIRA issue, then one should be created. > > >>> Yes, though I'd be inclined to move it sooner -- tests should not > stay > > > > >>> broken for more than a couple of days. > > >>> > > >>> Recently our breakages have been invalid tests rather than broken > > >>> implementation, but they still need to be investigated/resolved. > > >>> > > >>>> I've been living with consistently failing tests for a long time > now. > > > > >>>> Recently it was the unstable Socket tests, but I've been seeing the > > >> WinXP > > >>>> long file name [1] test failing for months. > > >>> IMHO you should be shouting about it! The alternative is that we > > >>> tolerate a few broken windows and overall quality slips. > > >>> > > >>>> I think we may be unnecessarily complicating some of this by > assuming > > > > >> that > > >>>> all of the donated tests that are currently excluded and failing > are > > >>>> completely valid. I believe that the currently excluded tests are > > >> either > > >>>> failing because they aren't isolated according to the suggested > test > > >> layout > > >>>> or they are invalid test; I suspect that HARMONY-619 [1] is a case > of > > > > >> the > > >>>> later. > > >>>> > > >>>> So I go back to my original suggestion, implement the testing > > proposal, > > >> then > > >>>> fix/move any excluded tests to where they work properly or > determine > > >> that > > >>>> they are invalid and delete them. > > >>> Yes, the tests do need improvements too. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Tim > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-619 > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tim Ellison ( [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
