sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in RC2
> > > > >
> > > > > * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > > > > * Restored development reports
> > > > > * Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests
> -
> > > > > thanks, sebb!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Unfortunately not enough, see below...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > * Added link to release javadoc in site.xml
> > > > > * Fixed xml errors in changes.xml
> > > > > * Added test for ErodingPerKeyKeyedObjectPool
> > > > > * Changed clirr comparison version from 1.3 to 1.4
> > > > > * Added missing attributes to sources jar manifest
> > > > >
> > > > > The files are here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-pool-1.5-RC2/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Source and binary archives agree with each other; hashes and sigs OK.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I got a new test failure with Java 1.4.2 and Maven:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Time elapsed: 0.063 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError
> > > > at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
> > >
> > >
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:27)
> > >
> > >
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:947)
> > >
> > >
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:810)
> > >
> > >
> > > > I tried re-running the test, and it was OK. Tried rebuild and retest -
> OK.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, that particular test does not use threads or
> > > > timers as part of the test case, so that suggests that there might be
> > > > a timing/threading issue in the main pool code.
> > > >
> > > > I'll try re-running the test case a few more times to see if I can get
> > > > it to go wrong again.
> > > >
> > > > Also, clearly the failure message needs to be enhanced to show which
> > > > of the following checks failed:
> > > >
> > > > assertTrue(visitCount >= cycleCount &&
> > > > visitCount <= cycleCount + 1);
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately a lot of the assertions fail to provide any details of
> > > > what has gone wrong, which make debugging a lot harder.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Thanks for finding and looking into this. Should not be happening.
> Sorry
> > > the tests in general and this one in particular are so cryptic. What
> this
> > > one is doing is verifying that the evictor visits idle instances in the
> > > keyed pools in oldest-to-youngest order and does not systematically miss
> > > any. What would be good to know at the time of the failure above is the
> > > values of the local variables visitCount, cycleCount and totalInstances.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Probably also the values of the enclosing loop counts.
> > It would perhaps be useful to not fail on the first such error, but
> > only fail when all the objects have been checked, so one could see how
> > many objects are not visited the expected number of times.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What is going on in this part of the test is that there are three keyed
> > > pools randomly generated containing a total of totalInstances idle
> objects.
> > > The evictor is run a random number of times (between 10 and 60) and what
> we
> > > expect is that each instance in the combined pool will be "visited"
> either
> > > cycleCount or cycleCount +1 times, where
> > > cycleCount = (runs * pool.getNumTestsPerEvictionRun())
> /
> > > totalInstances. That is the assertion that is failing. I don't see
> off
> > > the top of my head how this can be timing or concurrency-related.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Could there be an issue with checking the age?
> > I don't know how the ages are compared, but Java time resolution means
> > multiple objects can be created in the same time slot.
> >
> >
> Not in this case. The test that is failing is not looking at age or
> "evicting" instances because of age. It is just validating idle objects in
> the pool (testWhileIdle = true).
Could the evictor be visiting items in the wrong order?
Perhaps favouring one object over another?
I guess we'd need to validate all the counts before failing in order
to find out.
> >
> >
> > > I will
> > > also look into this and see if I can get it to fail. Thanks again for
> your
> > > help on this.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In case it helps, my DOS script for this is:
> >
> > call mvn compiler:testCompile
> > echo Start >>testn.log
> > :LOOP0
> > echo %DATE% %TIME% >>testn.log
> > call mvn -Dtest=TestGenericKeyedObjectPool surefire:test
> > goto LOOP%ERRORLEVEL%
> > :LOOP1
> > type target\surefire-reports\*.txt >>testn.log
> > call bell
> >
> > If you are not using Windows, it should be easy to change accordingly
> >
> > I have also just seen the following error:
> >
> > Running
> org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool
> > java.util.NoSuchElementException: Timeout waiting for
> idle object
> > at
>
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.GenericKeyedObjectPool.borrowObject(GenericKeyedObjectPool.java:1139)
> > at
>
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool$TestThread.run(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:1339)
> > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:534)
> >
> > I'm working on improving the reporting for this as well (at present
> > the stack trace only goes to stderr; it would be useful if it was
> > added to the surefire report).
> >
> >
> Thanks. That one could be timing. Pls go ahead and commit your
> improvements so we can be looking at the same traces.
OK, done.
Just had another fail:
testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool)
Time elapsed: 0.094 sec <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: i 0 j 0 k 20 visitCount 0
cycleCount 1 totalInstances 70 Length 21
at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
at
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:949)
at
org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:812)
Line 949 is the same as previous 947 (added 2 imports)
Do the extra details of the numbers help?
Yes! I think I have found the problem. I think the change in r776085
to address POOL-125 inadvertently changed the order of the elements in
the evictioncursor when the pool is operating in FIFO mode (why I asked
about the line number above). I have been able to reproduce the failure
using jdk 1.4. I am working on a fix. Strange that it does not seem to
show up using 1.6. Must be a PRNG artifact.
Cryptic as they may be, I am happy to see that the unit tests picked up
this little bug :)
Thanks!
Phil
> Phil
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this is a problem, but the RELEASE-NOTES etc refer to
> 1.5-RC2.
> > > >
> > > > The OSGI versions likewise include the RC2.
> > > >
> > > > Does that mean there will need to be another build and vote before
> > > >
> > > >
> > > release?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yes. I will roll a "final" candidate with the artifact name changed
> (but
> > > tag name still RC-) and we will VOTE on that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The tag is here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POOL_1_5_RC2/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I used "Last Changed Rev: 780316"
> > > >
> > > > The differences between the xml files have now disappeared; not sure
> > > > what went wrong before.
> > > >
> > > > Also the only difference between the tag and the source archives are
> > > > doap and release notes, as expected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
