Tim Ellison wrote:
Before you go off writing more code, just take a moment to look at
HARMONY-263 and tell us what you think of it.
It ties us to JUnit. Doesn't moving the exclude list upwards give us
more freedom?
geir
Thanks
Tim
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
It seems everybody likes this approach. In that case, I have another
idea for exclude lists. Can't we go further and extend the current
exclude list functionality a bit more? And forget about TestNG and
friends for a while I mean.
For example, we can put exclude lists into something like:
exclude.xml:
---
<exclude-list>
<!-- exclude only particular tests -->
<class name="org.apache.harmony.luni.test.java.io.MyTest">
<test name="testConstructor11"/>
<test name="testMyMethodObjectObjectString_HY1234"/>
</class>
<!-- exclude all tests -->
<class name="org.apache.harmony.luni.test.java.io.NiceTest2"
includeAll="true"/>
...
</exclude-list>
exclude.linux.drlvm.xml:
---
<exclude-list>
<class name="org.apache.harmony.rmi.test.java.rmi.Ð’adBoyTest">
<test name="testLinuxHang_my"/>
</class>
</exclude-list>
And etc. ${hy.platfrom}and ${hy.harmony.vm.name} can be passed to the
controller test suite by ant. By the controller test suite I mean the
java class that knows how to parse the above files (using simple SAX
parser for example - it is easy, I can help if needed) and implements
junit TestSuite model to get fine-grained control over the testing
process.
IMHO this can be a nice solution for now. It's more powerful since it
allows to exclude individual tests rather that whole classes. What do
you think?
Thanks,
2006/11/15, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Seems, we says about different things :)
First of all, we have no TestNG (or other harness) yet but we need now
different exclude lists for different platforms.
Also, in my vision these exclude-lists are like a buffer before we
mark test
by correct tags.
When the test fails on some platform we update the corresponding
x-list and
investigate this failure.
As the result of investigation we mark the test or fix it.
Thanks, Vladimir
On 11/15/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Things become more and more complicated. Can anyone say why we
rejected to use TestSuites for this purpose from the very beginning?
Well, I can't say I am against using xml lists here. But the next step
will be to keep list of individual failing test methods in the xml
file. Then to create separate xml lists for api and impl tests and so
on. If we can't run original TestNG on Harmony then we invent it by
ourselves. :-)
Thanks,
2006/11/15, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
As part of solution for this issue the
*HARMONY-2197*<http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2197> was
created.
I suggest using the separate exclude list for each platform. I
hope in
this
case the test enabling for the different platforms will be easy.
Please,
look at it.
Any comments are welcome :)
Thanks, Vladimir
On 11/15/06, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel, you are correct. Rana, sorry for confusion. Both issues
block
passing class library unit tests.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2070 [drlvm][thread]
Unhandled exception in java.exe while java.util.jar module tests
execution
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2073 [drlvm][unit]
org.apache.harmony.beans.tests.java.beans.PersistenceDelegateTest
I've used a debugger and caught an assert in
exn_raise_by_name_internal for the second one. The first one
contains
three diffrent issues, and I cannot say where exactly the
problem is.
On 11/15/06, Pavel Afremov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand Alexey means HARMONY-2073, but not HARMONY-2070.
Alexei, is it correct? If not, could you clarify the point about
exn_raise_by_name_internal in your initial letter, please?
Pavel Afremov.
On 11/8/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK thanks Pavel, I'll try the patch today.
Rana
On 11/8/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rana.
I extend guard region as work around. It's only one way,
which
"fix"
SOE
on
my SuSE Linux, without potential regression of your fix.
On my
Linux
machine
violation access signals happen one page before protected
page
on
the
stack.
It's it.
I ran all tests, and everything was OK. But strange
misprint was
fount
in
the new test.
So I attach new fixed patch.
Pavel Afremov.
On 11/8/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Though I tried several times, I could not repro 2070 or
Alexey's
specific
problems. The test attached to 2018 repros, and that I
think
is
enough.
Pavel,
1. The patch looks good, but I could not apply and try it
since
my
Linux
box is down.
2. Did you run all tests ( smoke, cuint, kernel, and
classlib )?
Since
this fully turns on lazy exceptions, we need to ensure that
all
tests
pass,
or at least have identical behaviour before and after the
pacth.
3. Adding a finalizer based stack test to smoke is a good
idea.
4. On Linux you extend the guard region up ( or down
whatever )
by a
page. Did you find a good reason for it, or is this just
being
careful?
Rana
On 11/7/06, Pavel Afremov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Rana,
Everything is correct in you description, but it looks
like
that
*
HARMONY-2018* <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2018>
should
fix described bug. I think Alexei will have a chance to
check
it.
