[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think I understand your concern - is it that you don't want to see the >> issue swept under the rug? >> > > Yes, that's definitely my concern. And we've lost tests in the past that I > really wish had remained online. They also have a bad compounding effect > where the longer it stays offline the harder it is to bring it back because > someone checks in something that is actually broken and they assume that > since the change passes all tests that everything is good. As a result, we > have a really bad track record of bringing back tests. > > >> >> I don't know enough right now to fix the test personally, but I do get >> asked about build failures quite often - at least I feel compelled to look >> into them to make sure the test infrastructure is working. >> > > And I definitely don't want you having to fix things just because you're > doing the good deed of investigating breakages. I would rather see you > issued a build sheriff badge where you can say: "Build is breaking too much. > The problem seems to be here, can you (person who last edited the test or > generally known to own it) please look into the most appropriate fix." > You can keep the badge, I want spurs. Spurs that jingle... > > >> >> We had discussions about this particular test failure a few days ago and >> the consensus was that we should comment out the test for the time being and >> bump up the priority on fixing the underlying problem. I updated issue 864 >> before committing the patch, which Joel assigned to John Labanca 2 days ago. >> > > Sounds like you guys have a proper plan to get it back online. > > Thanks, > /kel > > >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we already know it is broken. >>> >>> So why not fix the test if it is operating on faulty assumptions? >>> Disabling tests really should be a last resort and I'm just curious why this >>> one is in last resort state. I feel like if it were in a state where it >>> should be disabled, putting in conditional code shouldn't be that >>> uncomfortable. Also, before disabling it you should also have a plan for >>> getting it back online as well and tie that to a issue tracker item. >>> >>> /kel >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where > they are flaky? > /kel > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think >> it matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've >> already used both comments and "disabled" methods. >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in >>> ImageTest commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the >>> same >>> for those? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be formatted like a comment. Thanks, John LaBanca [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hello John, > > I would like for you to review this patch. > > The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently > in our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be > related > to issues 863 & 864 > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 > > I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this > TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. > > M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > >>> >>>
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I understand your concern - is it that you don't want to see the > issue swept under the rug? > Yes, that's definitely my concern. And we've lost tests in the past that I really wish had remained online. They also have a bad compounding effect where the longer it stays offline the harder it is to bring it back because someone checks in something that is actually broken and they assume that since the change passes all tests that everything is good. As a result, we have a really bad track record of bringing back tests. > > I don't know enough right now to fix the test personally, but I do get > asked about build failures quite often - at least I feel compelled to look > into them to make sure the test infrastructure is working. > And I definitely don't want you having to fix things just because you're doing the good deed of investigating breakages. I would rather see you issued a build sheriff badge where you can say: "Build is breaking too much. The problem seems to be here, can you (person who last edited the test or generally known to own it) please look into the most appropriate fix." > > We had discussions about this particular test failure a few days ago and > the consensus was that we should comment out the test for the time being and > bump up the priority on fixing the underlying problem. I updated issue 864 > before committing the patch, which Joel assigned to John Labanca 2 days ago. > Sounds like you guys have a proper plan to get it back online. Thanks, /kel > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in >>> #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I >>> don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we >>> already know it is broken. >>> >> >> So why not fix the test if it is operating on faulty assumptions? >> Disabling tests really should be a last resort and I'm just curious why this >> one is in last resort state. I feel like if it were in a state where it >> should be disabled, putting in conditional code shouldn't be that >> uncomfortable. Also, before disabling it you should also have a plan for >> getting it back online as well and tie that to a issue tracker item. >> >> /kel >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where they are flaky? /kel On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think > it matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've > already used both comments and "disabled" methods. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest >> commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for >> those? >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit >>> doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the >>> comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method >>> will be >>> formatted like a comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> John LaBanca >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> Hello John, I would like for you to review this patch. The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related to issues 863 & 864 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > > > > -- If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
I think I understand your concern - is it that you don't want to see the issue swept under the rug? I don't know enough right now to fix the test personally, but I do get asked about build failures quite often - at least I feel compelled to look into them to make sure the test infrastructure is working. We had discussions about this particular test failure a few days ago and the consensus was that we should comment out the test for the time being and bump up the priority on fixing the underlying problem. I updated issue 864 before committing the patch, which Joel assigned to John Labanca 2 days ago. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in >> #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I >> don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we >> already know it is broken. >> > > So why not fix the test if it is operating on faulty assumptions? Disabling > tests really should be a last resort and I'm just curious why this one is in > last resort state. I feel like if it were in a state where it should be > disabled, putting in conditional code shouldn't be that uncomfortable. Also, > before disabling it you should also have a plan for getting it back online > as well and tie that to a issue tracker item. > > /kel > > >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where >>> they are flaky? >>> /kel >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already used both comments and "disabled" methods. Thanks, John LaBanca [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest > commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit >> doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the >> comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method >> will be >> formatted like a comment. >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> I would like for you to review this patch. >>> >>> The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently >>> in our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be >>> related >>> to issues 863 & 864 >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 >>> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 >>> >>> I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this >>> TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. >>> >>> M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >> >> > > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one >>> free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all >>> relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy >>> treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of >>> ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > > > -- > If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free > ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant > SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll > have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. > (offer may not be valid in all States). > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in > #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I > don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we > already know it is broken. > So why not fix the test if it is operating on faulty assumptions? Disabling tests really should be a last resort and I'm just curious why this one is in last resort state. I feel like if it were in a state where it should be disabled, putting in conditional code shouldn't be that uncomfortable. Also, before disabling it you should also have a plan for getting it back online as well and tie that to a issue tracker item. /kel > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where >> they are flaky? >> /kel >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it >>> matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already >>> used both comments and "disabled" methods. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> John LaBanca >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit > doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the > comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will > be > formatted like a comment. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello John, >> >> I would like for you to review this patch. >> >> The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in >> our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related >> to >> issues 863 & 864 >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 >> >> I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this >> TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. >> >> M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one >> free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all >> relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy >> treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of >> ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). >> > > > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > -- If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
Committed as r3644. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in > #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I > don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we > already know it is broken. > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where >> they are flaky? >> /kel >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it >>> matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already >>> used both comments and "disabled" methods. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> John LaBanca >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit > doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the > comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will > be > formatted like a comment. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello John, >> >> I would like for you to review this patch. >> >> The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in >> our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related >> to >> issues 863 & 864 >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 >> >> I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this >> TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. >> >> M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one >> free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all >> relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy >> treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of >> ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). >> > > > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
The failure that's occurring is very similar to the problem described in #864. The assumptions of the test or the code we are testing is wrong. I don't feel comfortable adding a lot of conditional code in the test when we already know it is broken. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where they > are flaky? > /kel > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it >> matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already >> used both comments and "disabled" methods. >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest >>> commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be formatted like a comment. Thanks, John LaBanca [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello John, > > I would like for you to review this patch. > > The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in > our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related > to > issues 863 & 864 > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 > > I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this > TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. > > M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free > ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant > SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll > have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. > (offer may not be valid in all States). > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
Have you considered disabling those tests only for the platforms where they are flaky? /kel On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it > matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already > used both comments and "disabled" methods. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest >> commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit >>> doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the >>> comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be >>> formatted like a comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> John LaBanca >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hello John, I would like for you to review this patch. The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related to issues 863 & 864 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > > > > -- If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
If we already comment out some methods, then LGTM. Joel doesn't think it matters, and I just wanted to be consistent not realizing that we've already used both comments and "disabled" methods. Thanks, John LaBanca [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest > commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit >> doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the >> comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be >> formatted like a comment. >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> I would like for you to review this patch. >>> >>> The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in >>> our continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related to >>> issues 863 & 864 >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 >>> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 >>> >>> I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this >>> TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. >>> >>> M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >> >> > > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
I don't mind doing that. There are several other methods in ImageTest commented out in the same way I did it. Want me to do the same for those? On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John LaBanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit > doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the > comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be > formatted like a comment. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello John, >> >> I would like for you to review this patch. >> >> The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in our >> continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related to >> issues 863 & 864 >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 >> >> I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this >> TestCase that are commented out due to the same issues. >> >> M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java >> >> -- >> Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> > > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: Code Review: Comment out flaky test in ImageTest
I think we usually just rename the test to "disabledTestXXX" so JUnit doesn't run it. Do you mind doing it that way instead, but leaving the comment? Otherwise, the next time somebody auto-formats, the method will be formatted like a comment. Thanks, John LaBanca [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eric Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello John, > > I would like for you to review this patch. > > The testChangeClippedImageToUnclipped() method fails intermittently in our > continuous build system on Linux hosted mode. This could be related to > issues 863 & 864 > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=863 > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=864 > > I've commented out the test, as there are many other tests in this TestCase > that are commented out due to the same issues. > > M user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ImageTest.java > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
