On 01/06/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/06/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > The modified code looks correct. Could be a test bug. Still > > > investigating... > > > > > > I've noticed that k == (twoLength - 1) i.e. it is always the last > > entry that fails the check, and it seems to always be 1 less than > > expected. > > > > I've added some code to my working copy to print out the visit counts > > for the other entries on failure; if that works OK I'll commit it. > > > > > Committed the code. > > One example failure is: > > Tests run: 43, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: > 28.672 sec <<< FAILURE! > > testEvictorVisiting(org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool) > > Time elapsed: 0.031 sec <<< FAILURE! > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: TWO Visits:2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 > 2 2 2 2 1 runs=52 lifo=false i=0 j=0 k=15 visitCount=1 cycleCount=2 > totalInstances=52 Lengths=10,26,16 > > at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47) > > at > org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.checkEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:962) > > at > org.apache.commons.pool.impl.TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.testEvictorVisiting(TestGenericKeyedObjectPool.java:812) > > > This shows that all the visitCounts are OK apart from the last. > Perhaps an off-by-one error somewhere? > > Two more fails: > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: TWO Visits:2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 > 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 runs=59 lifo=false i=0 j=0 k=26 > visitCount=1 cycleCount=2 totalInstances=59 Lengths=17,15,27 > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: TWO Visits:1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 0 runs=23 lifo=false i=0 j=0 k=16 visitCount=0 cycleCount=1 > totalInstances=46 Lengths=17,12,17 >
I just tried using the fixed numbers from a failed run (instead of using random ones), and it fails every time with the following settings: runs=26 Lengths=12,12,28 So it's clearly some kind of logic error - looks like it occurs where "runs" is an exact multiple of "totalInstances". > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
