Peter Firmstone wrote:
Hi Patricia,
I haven't completed the second round of tests yet, these should be
complete by morning. I don't think it's safe to assume absence of
failure precludes it.
Indeed. As I noted in the first request for the test, a hit would
quickly refute the hypothesis. A lack of hits does not tell us anything
at all. The hypothesis, that sequence number sensitive tasks are added
in sequence number order, can only be confirmed by analysis.
We can see the potential for failure, we just haven't simulated the
conditions for it I suspect.
You should be able to run the qa tests yourself with ant qa.run, we
should probably look at how we can run some simulations using the qa suite.
It is *should" be able, not can. I'll take another run at trying to get
a working test environment.
If the check for retry messages in the log does not show a significant
number, I will work on a modification to RetryTask to force retries. I
am confident, based on analysis of some RetryTask subclasses, that at
least one of two statements is true:
1. Tasks that sequence number conflict with a task that is in the retry
process are never added, and the non-trivial runAfter test is a waste of
time. This seems unlikely to me.
2. During retries, sequence number sensitive conflicting tasks can get
out of order.
Patricia
