Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi folks, I'd like to investigate tests/api/java/net/DatagramSocketTest.java and tests/api/java/net/DatagramSocketTest.java in luni module. I have updated the wiki page(http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests). I'll also plan to study other excluded tests in luni module when I finish these two files. Please let me know if you're interested too. Thanks! On 7/14/06, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests was added to WIKI (refered from http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary). It would be good if before test investigation one would specify 'in progress, Name' near module name, showing it is under investigation being done by Name. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/14/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: New page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests was added to WIKI (refered from http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary). It would be good if before test investigation one would specify 'in progress, Name' near module name, showing it is under investigation being done by Name. Nice - please add those as instructions at the top. Also add to those instructions that if someone does add their name to the list, they should also send a quick note to the dev list letting people know. geir Thanks, Vladimir On 7/14/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Great job. Vladimir ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: New page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests was added to WIKI (refered from http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary). It would be good if before test investigation one would specify 'in progress, Name' near module name, showing it is under investigation being done by Name. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/14/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Yes Vladimir, nice job! I have updated the data for beans module. Since the reason of failures for the most of excluded test is not known yet I just put their names there without any comment why they were excluded. Thanks, 2006/7/14, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Great job. Vladimir ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: New page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests was added to WIKI (refered from http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary). It would be good if before test investigation one would specify 'in progress, Name' near module name, showing it is under investigation being done by Name. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/14/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
New page http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Excluded_tests was added to WIKI (refered from http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary). It would be good if before test investigation one would specify 'in progress, Name' near module name, showing it is under investigation being done by Name. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/14/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Hello Vladimir, How about the progress of your report/summary? ;-) As I'm implementing java.util.Formatter and java.util.Scanner, I'm also interested in the excluded tests in LUNI. Shall we create a wiki page to publish our status, so that other people in community can know what we're doing, and maybe we could attract more volunteers. ;-) Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Currently I'm looking on the excluded TestCases and it requires more time than I expected. I'll prepare a report/summary about excluded TestCases at the end of this process. Thanks, Vladimir On 7/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi, If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. I think it's a nice idea to do this at least for java.beans since there are hundreds of useful workable tests excluded. After quite a long time working with this module I have a strong wish to clean up the mess. But probably we should define some naming pattern for class to put excluded tests into. For example for XMLEncoderTest.java we can have XMLEncoderTest_Disabled.java or XMLEncoderTest_Failed.java. In this case we don't need to put extra exclude clause in the build.xml since such name doesn't match **/*Test.java pattern (current). Another variant is something like FAILED_XMLEncoderTest.java - matches the pattern and needs the clause. Thoughts? 2006/7/6, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. I think it's a nice idea to do this at least for java.beans since there are hundreds of useful workable tests excluded. After quite a long time working with this module I have a strong wish to clean up the mess. But probably we should define some naming pattern for class to put excluded tests into. For example for XMLEncoderTest.java we can have XMLEncoderTest_Disabled.java or XMLEncoderTest_Failed.java. In this case we don't need to put extra exclude clause in the build.xml since such name doesn't match **/*Test.java pattern (current). Another variant is something like FAILED_XMLEncoderTest.java - matches the pattern and needs the clause. Thoughts? Hi Alexei, Have you seen the discussion thread related to configuring our tests using suites [1] ? If not, then it seems to me that there is potential there for a simpler/quicker way of excluding or including tests without recourse to creating new files or renaming existing ones. What do you think ? Best regards, George [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006/7/6, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. I think it's a nice idea to do this at least for java.beans since there are hundreds of useful workable tests excluded. After quite a long time working with this module I have a strong wish to clean up the mess. But probably we should define some naming pattern for class to put excluded tests into. For example for XMLEncoderTest.java we can have XMLEncoderTest_Disabled.java or XMLEncoderTest_Failed.java. In this case we don't need to put extra exclude clause in the build.xml since such name doesn't match **/*Test.java pattern (current). Another variant is something like FAILED_XMLEncoderTest.java - matches the pattern and needs the clause. Thoughts? I know that is a simple scheme, but let's not invent yet another way. Either wait for the resolution of the testing layout thread George refers to, or use the exclusion list for the moment. Regards, Tim -- 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Thanks George Tim, I was out during last week and today was reading threads from oldest to the newest. :) I agree, general solution using TestSuites or even TestNG is better than my temporary one. However, defining a general approach can take a long period of time. Anyway, let's move our discussion to that thread. 2006/7/10, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. I think it's a nice idea to do this at least for java.beans since there are hundreds of useful workable tests excluded. After quite a long time working with this module I have a strong wish to clean up the mess. But probably we should define some naming pattern for class to put excluded tests into. For example for XMLEncoderTest.java we can have XMLEncoderTest_Disabled.java or XMLEncoderTest_Failed.java. In this case we don't need to put extra exclude clause in the build.xml since such name doesn't match **/*Test.java pattern (current). Another variant is something like FAILED_XMLEncoderTest.java - matches the pattern and needs the clause. Thoughts? Hi Alexei, Have you seen the discussion thread related to configuring our tests using suites [1] ? If not, then it seems to me that there is potential there for a simpler/quicker way of excluding or including tests without recourse to creating new files or renaming existing ones. What do you think ? Best regards, George [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006/7/6, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: 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? I'd prefer that we only use one mechanism for excluding tests, and today that is the excludes clause in the ant script. So I suggest that you do option (4) below. If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing. 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 Sounds great, thanks Vladimir. Regards, Tim -- 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]
RE: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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 -- 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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]
RE: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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. -Nathan -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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi Nathan, 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 will give a concrete example. Currently for java.beans we have more than thousand tests in 50 classes. And about 30% of them fail. These are not invalid tests, they just came from the origin different from the one of java.beans implementation currently in svn. They mostly test the compatibility with RI the current implementation has problems with. Now I am working on enabling these 30% but this is not such an easy task. It will take time (need to refactor internal stuff etc). And it is the standard situation for test class to have for example 30 passed tests and 9 failed. Since there are failures the whole test class is excluded. As a result we currently have only 22 test classes enabled with just 130 test inside. So about thousand (!) passed tests thrown overboard. IMHO this is not normal situation and we need to find some solution. At least for the period while these 30% are being fixed. 2006/6/30, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] George Harley wrote: Nathan Beyer wrote: Two suggestions: 1. Approve the testing strategy [1] and implement/rework the modules appropriately. 2. Fix the tests! -Nathan [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.htm l Hi Nathan, What are your thoughts on running or not running test cases containing problematic test methods while those methods are being investigated and fixed up ? That's exactly the problem. We need a clear way to maintain and track this stuff. geir 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. 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. 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. 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. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-619 Best regards, George -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests George Harley wrote: Hi Geir, As you may recall, a while back I floated the idea and supplied some seed code to define all known test failing test methods in an XML file (an exclusions list) that could be used by JUnit at test run time to skip over them while allowing the rest of the test methods in a class to run [1]. Obviously I thought about that when catching up with this thread but, more importantly, your comment about being reluctant to have more dependencies on JUnit also motivated me to go off and read some more about TestNG [2]. It was news to me that TestNG provides out-of-the-box support for excluding specific test methods as well as groups of methods (where the groups are declared in source file annotations or Javadoc comments). Even better, it can do this on existing JUnit test code provided that the necessary meta-data (annotations if compiling to a 1.5 target; Javadoc comments if targeting 1.4 like we currently are). There is a utility available in the TestNG download and also in the Eclipse support plug-in that helps migrate directories of existing JUnit tests to TestNG by adding in the basic meta-data (although for me the Eclipse version also tried to break the test class inheritance from junit.framework.TestCase which was definitely not what was required). Perhaps ... just perhaps ... we should be looking at something like TestNG (or my
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Nathan Beyer wrote: Two suggestions: 1. Approve the testing strategy [1] and implement/rework the modules appropriately. 2. Fix the tests! -Nathan [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html Hi Nathan, What are your thoughts on running or not running test cases containing problematic test methods while those methods are being investigated and fixed up ? Best regards, George -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests George Harley wrote: Hi Geir, As you may recall, a while back I floated the idea and supplied some seed code to define all known test failing test methods in an XML file (an exclusions list) that could be used by JUnit at test run time to skip over them while allowing the rest of the test methods in a class to run [1]. Obviously I thought about that when catching up with this thread but, more importantly, your comment about being reluctant to have more dependencies on JUnit also motivated me to go off and read some more about TestNG [2]. It was news to me that TestNG provides out-of-the-box support for excluding specific test methods as well as groups of methods (where the groups are declared in source file annotations or Javadoc comments). Even better, it can do this on existing JUnit test code provided that the necessary meta-data (annotations if compiling to a 1.5 target; Javadoc comments if targeting 1.4 like we currently are). There is a utility available in the TestNG download and also in the Eclipse support plug-in that helps migrate directories of existing JUnit tests to TestNG by adding in the basic meta-data (although for me the Eclipse version also tried to break the test class inheritance from junit.framework.TestCase which was definitely not what was required). Perhaps ... just perhaps ... we should be looking at something like TestNG (or my wonderful exclusions list :-) ) to provide the granularity of test configuration that we need. Just a thought. How 'bout that ;) geir Best regards, George [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263 [2] http://testng.org Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. I'm reluctant to see more dependencies on JUnit when we could control at a level higher in the build system. Hard to explain, I guess, but if our exclusions are buried in .java, I would think that reporting and tracking over time is going to be much harder. geir 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is - do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
George Harley wrote: Nathan Beyer wrote: Two suggestions: 1. Approve the testing strategy [1] and implement/rework the modules appropriately. 2. Fix the tests! -Nathan [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html Hi Nathan, What are your thoughts on running or not running test cases containing problematic test methods while those methods are being investigated and fixed up ? That's exactly the problem. We need a clear way to maintain and track this stuff. geir Best regards, George -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests George Harley wrote: Hi Geir, As you may recall, a while back I floated the idea and supplied some seed code to define all known test failing test methods in an XML file (an exclusions list) that could be used by JUnit at test run time to skip over them while allowing the rest of the test methods in a class to run [1]. Obviously I thought about that when catching up with this thread but, more importantly, your comment about being reluctant to have more dependencies on JUnit also motivated me to go off and read some more about TestNG [2]. It was news to me that TestNG provides out-of-the-box support for excluding specific test methods as well as groups of methods (where the groups are declared in source file annotations or Javadoc comments). Even better, it can do this on existing JUnit test code provided that the necessary meta-data (annotations if compiling to a 1.5 target; Javadoc comments if targeting 1.4 like we currently are). There is a utility available in the TestNG download and also in the Eclipse support plug-in that helps migrate directories of existing JUnit tests to TestNG by adding in the basic meta-data (although for me the Eclipse version also tried to break the test class inheritance from junit.framework.TestCase which was definitely not what was required). Perhaps ... just perhaps ... we should be looking at something like TestNG (or my wonderful exclusions list :-) ) to provide the granularity of test configuration that we need. Just a thought. How 'bout that ;) geir Best regards, George [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263 [2] http://testng.org Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. I'm reluctant to see more dependencies on JUnit when we could control at a level higher in the build system. Hard to explain, I guess, but if our exclusions are buried in .java, I would think that reporting and tracking over time is going to be much harder. geir 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is - do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we
RE: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
-Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] George Harley wrote: Nathan Beyer wrote: Two suggestions: 1. Approve the testing strategy [1] and implement/rework the modules appropriately. 2. Fix the tests! -Nathan [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.htm l Hi Nathan, What are your thoughts on running or not running test cases containing problematic test methods while those methods are being investigated and fixed up ? That's exactly the problem. We need a clear way to maintain and track this stuff. geir 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. 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. 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. 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. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-619 Best regards, George -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests George Harley wrote: Hi Geir, As you may recall, a while back I floated the idea and supplied some seed code to define all known test failing test methods in an XML file (an exclusions list) that could be used by JUnit at test run time to skip over them while allowing the rest of the test methods in a class to run [1]. Obviously I thought about that when catching up with this thread but, more importantly, your comment about being reluctant to have more dependencies on JUnit also motivated me to go off and read some more about TestNG [2]. It was news to me that TestNG provides out-of-the-box support for excluding specific test methods as well as groups of methods (where the groups are declared in source file annotations or Javadoc comments). Even better, it can do this on existing JUnit test code provided that the necessary meta-data (annotations if compiling to a 1.5 target; Javadoc comments if targeting 1.4 like we currently are). There is a utility available in the TestNG download and also in the Eclipse support plug-in that helps migrate directories of existing JUnit tests to TestNG by adding in the basic meta-data (although for me the Eclipse version also tried to break the test class inheritance from junit.framework.TestCase which was definitely not what was required). Perhaps ... just perhaps ... we should be looking at something like TestNG (or my wonderful exclusions list :-) ) to provide the granularity of test configuration that we need. Just a thought. How 'bout that ;) geir Best regards, George [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263 [2] http://testng.org Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. I'm reluctant to see more dependencies on JUnit when we could control at a level higher in the build system. Hard to explain, I guess, but if our exclusions are buried in .java, I would think that reporting and tracking over time is going to be much harder. geir 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention
RE: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Two suggestions: 1. Approve the testing strategy [1] and implement/rework the modules appropriately. 2. Fix the tests! -Nathan [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests George Harley wrote: Hi Geir, As you may recall, a while back I floated the idea and supplied some seed code to define all known test failing test methods in an XML file (an exclusions list) that could be used by JUnit at test run time to skip over them while allowing the rest of the test methods in a class to run [1]. Obviously I thought about that when catching up with this thread but, more importantly, your comment about being reluctant to have more dependencies on JUnit also motivated me to go off and read some more about TestNG [2]. It was news to me that TestNG provides out-of-the-box support for excluding specific test methods as well as groups of methods (where the groups are declared in source file annotations or Javadoc comments). Even better, it can do this on existing JUnit test code provided that the necessary meta-data (annotations if compiling to a 1.5 target; Javadoc comments if targeting 1.4 like we currently are). There is a utility available in the TestNG download and also in the Eclipse support plug-in that helps migrate directories of existing JUnit tests to TestNG by adding in the basic meta-data (although for me the Eclipse version also tried to break the test class inheritance from junit.framework.TestCase which was definitely not what was required). Perhaps ... just perhaps ... we should be looking at something like TestNG (or my wonderful exclusions list :-) ) to provide the granularity of test configuration that we need. Just a thought. How 'bout that ;) geir Best regards, George [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263 [2] http://testng.org Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. I'm reluctant to see more dependencies on JUnit when we could control at a level higher in the build system. Hard to explain, I guess, but if our exclusions are buried in .java, I would think that reporting and tracking over time is going to be much harder. geir 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is - do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir Tim Ellison
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is – do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
There was a submission that enabled finer control of failing tests (even by platform etc.) I may be wrong but commenting out tests usually means that they never get fixed; even putting them into exclude clauses in the ant script is too hidden for me -- I prefer to see the exclusions and failures made available very clearly. Regards, Tim Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is – do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Tim Ellison wrote: There was a submission that enabled finer control of failing tests (even by platform etc.) I may be wrong but commenting out tests usually means that they never get fixed; Yes, that was my concern as well. even putting them into exclude clauses in the ant script is too hidden for me -- I prefer to see the exclusions and failures made available very clearly. Well, if we did refactor into TestFOO.java and TestFOO_Failures.java and have an explicit include, people would clearly see the problematic test cases and might be motivated to contribute by fixing... geir Regards, Tim Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi, +1 for (3), but I think it will be better to define suite() method and enumerate passing tests there rather than to comment out the code. 2006/6/27, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is – do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is – do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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]
Re: [classlib][testing] excluding the failed tests
Hello Vladimir, +1 to option 3) . We shall comment the failed test cases out and add FIXME to remind us to diagnose the problems later. ;-) Vladimir Ivanov wrote: I see your point. But I feel that we can miss regression in non-tested code if we exclude TestCases. Now, for example we miss testing of java.lang.Class/Process/Thread/String and some other classes. While we have failing tests and don't want to pay attention to these failures we can: 1) Leave things as is – do not run TestCases with failing tests. 2) Split passing/failing TestCase into separate failing TestCase and passing TestCase and exclude failing TestCases. When test or implementation is fixed we move tests from failing TestCase to passing TestCase. 3) Comment failing tests in TestCases. It is better to run 58 tests instead of 0 for String. 4) Run all TestCases, then, compare test run results with the 'list of known failures' and see whether new failures appeared. This, I think, is better then 1, 2 and 3, but, overhead is that we support 2 lists - list of known failing tests and exclude list where we put crashing tests. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir, IMHO the tests are to verify that an update does not introduce any regression. So there are two options: remember which exactly tests may fail and remember that all tests must pass. I believe the latter one is a bit easier and safer. +1 Tim Thanks, Mikhail 2006/6/26, Vladimir Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Working with tests I noticed that we are excluding some tests just because several tests from single TestCase fail. For example, the TestCase 'tests.api.java.lang.StringTest' has 60 tests and only 2 of them fails. But the build excludes the whole TestCase and we just miss testing of java.lang.String implementation. Do we really need to exclude TestCases in 'ant test' target? My suggestion is: do not exclude any tests until it crashes VM. If somebody needs a list of tests that always passed a separated target can be added to build. Do you think we should add target 'test-all' to the build? Thanks, Vladimir - 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] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
