There is hardly unanimous agreement here.
How much time is wasted? Seems like a false assumption. Is this
failure so hard to understand?
testAMXComplianceMonitorFailureCount___KNOWN_FAILURE_20090904_ISSUE_9355_IGNORE_FOR_NOW
So when the test is disabled, *more* bugs can go in undetected? There
is a larger picture to be understood.
=====> Abhijit should make the call.
Lloyd
On Sep 4, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Sahoo wrote:
> I agree with Kedar. Look the amount of time wasted because of a
> known failure. We can keep a bug open to ensure that the test is re-
> enabled.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>> I was suggesting a temporary disablement so others can continue with
>> their chores. It's lame too to expect a known failure to show up.
>> So, I vote for (temporarily) disabling it.
>>
>> Lloyd Chambers wrote:
>>> Abhijit is trending strongly towards disabling the test for this
>>> reason (confusion).
>>>
>>> They indicate real problem with the ORB MBeans, but not problems
>>> that affect the overall server operation.
>>>
>>> So what it comes down to is what our policy in removing tests that
>>> detect real problems? I think it's kinda lame to have tests, then
>>> turn them off when real problems crop up.
>>>
>>> My other suggestion was to have the test itself emit a message
>>> indicating that it is a known issue.
>>
>> But still, I won't know if the failure is because of the fact that
>> there is a known cause for it or because my changes are (also)
>> causing
>> it.
>>
>>>
>>> I have NOT seen amxtest.AMXCoreTests.iterateAllSanityCheck() fail,
>>> so that one needs looking into.
>>>
>>> Lloyd
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get the failure with:
>>>> amxtest.AMXCoreTests:testAMXComplianceMonitorFailureCount
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear if that's the same as the one reported in 9355.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, can we temporarily disable the test so that we get a clean
>>>> run every time? When the bug is fixed, we can re-enable it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Jane Young wrote:
>>>>> I know #2 is a known issue. See IT 9355
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://gf-hudson.sfbay.sun.com/hudson/job/gf-trunk-build-continuous/2205/artifact/bundles/QL-GP-report.html
>>>>> I'm not sure about #1. Are you getting total of 2 failures or 1?
>>>>
>>>>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to make sure that Felix 2.0 is ready for release.
>>>>>> My latest run comes up with the following QL failures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. iterateAllSanityCheck
>>>>>> java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>>>> at amxtest.AMXCoreTests.iterateAllSanityCheck
>>>>>> (AMXCoreTests.java:94)
>>>>>> 2. testAMXComplianceMonitorFailureCount
>>>>>> java.lang.AssertionError: Server indicates that there are
>>>>>> non-compliant AMX MBean validator failures, failure count = 20,
>>>>>> examine the server log for failures
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> amxtest.AMXCoreTests.testAMXComplianceMonitorFailureCount
>>>>>> (AMXCoreTests.java:112)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are these normal failures in GF trunk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lloyd Chambers
>>> lloyd.chambers_at_sun.com
>>> GlassFish Team
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>
Lloyd Chambers
lloyd.chambers_at_sun.com
GlassFish Team