Anissa,
May be I'm confused. Is it a separate QL or a general GF QL?
If it's a separate QL, then I'm just confused, and the GF QL is failing for a
completely different reason.
If it's a GF QL, then I'd expect any new test to be enabled only after it passes
(it's ok to have a test that fails and can be run stand-alone).
Regards,
-marina
Anissa Lam wrote:
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>> Hi Anissa,
>>
>> Anissa Lam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marina,
>>>
>>> I don't think i agree with you.
>>> If there is QL failure in say 'admin' or 'security' or 'web
>>> container', do you remove that or comment out that part of
>>> quicklook ? Why Admin Console should be different ?
>>
>>
>> You are expected not to check in the code that breaks the QL, right?
>
> Yes. Thats what is expected by everyone. We didn't break QL. The
> test shows that there is bug in the system that causes QL to fail.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Your saying of : *'a QL that is guarantee to report failures' *is
>>> not true at all.
>>>
>>> It reports failure because there is a regression in the system. If
>>> we were able to turn on the QL yesterday, then someone will see that
>>> whatever the change they put in is causing Admin Console to fail and
>>> we can avoid this .
>>
>>
>> Agree. Where I disagree, is the point of adding a test *before* it can
>> pass.
>
> Sorry, I don't get this. We were always able to run this QL test
> until this afternoon. Because of this QL test, we are able to catch
> the problem in the web container. Jeanfrancois just said that he found
> the problem now, and he is putting in the fix soon. Once his fix is
> in, QL will pass. So, what is wrong with our test ?
> Thanks
> Anissa.
>
>>
>>> This is what QL is for.
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Anissa
>>>
>>>
>>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anissa Lam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will say no. Why do you want to turn off the test ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So that others can easily see if they cause any regressions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a valid
>>>>
>>>>> test and the system is indeed has problem. There is no way to
>>>>> bring up the admin console now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's why we have an open bug. But having a QL that is guarantee to
>>>> report failures is very confusing...
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> -marina
>>>>
>>>> Jan is looking into the issue and think that
>>>>
>>>>> may be related to the Grizzly integration.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> Anissa.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anissa,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we turn off Admin Console QL until you find the fix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> -marina
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anissa Lam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks to Jason, Admin Console QL is now turned on. If you
>>>>>>> update your workspace, your QL run will also include admin
>>>>>>> console QL.
>>>>>>> As of now, admin console QL is failing because there is problem
>>>>>>> in the system. We can't access the login page and thus cannot
>>>>>>> bring up the console. It sure does the job :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An issue has been filed,
>>>>>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6131
>>>>>>> Hopefully we will be able to catch this kind of issue sooner now
>>>>>>> that the test is in place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> Anissa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>