I've reproduced the problem on my WinXP system using Java 1.6.0.

However, it only happens once in every 150 or 250 tests.

There were some multi-threading bugs in the PoolTest nested class,
which I have fixed in trunk; I also added more info if the test fails.

The failure appears to be a timeout waiting for a connection to become free.

If anyone else wants to test this on Windows, a suitable script file
to run the test until it fails is as follows:

------cut here-----
echo Start >>retest.log
:okay
echo %time% >>retest.log
call mvn test -Dtest=TestPerUserPoolDataSource
IF %ERRORLEVEL% LEQ 0 goto okay
echo End >>retest.log
------cut here-----

The "echo" lines are not essential and can be omitted.


On 30/12/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, just noticed that Continuum has had a test failure:
>
>  
> testMultipleThreads(org.apache.commons.dbcp.datasources.TestPerUserPoolDataSource)
>   Time elapsed: 0.899 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.dbcp.datasources.TestPerUserPoolDataSource.testMultipleThreads(TestPerUserPoolDataSource.java:376)
>
>  This may perhaps be due to a timing error, but the lack of info in the
>  assertion failure messages does not make it easy to establish what has
>  failed.
>
>
>  On 30/12/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 29/12/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > Hopefully all problems with JDK versions and the site build have now
>  >  >  been resolved.  As previously discussed, the only difference between
>  >  >  1.3 and 1.4 is that the 1.3 sources have been filtered to exclude
>  >  >  JDBC4 methods.  Version 1.3 is for JDK 1.4-1.5 and only builds under
>  >  >  one of these JDKs.  Note that to execute the 1.3 maven build under
>  >  >  JDK 1.4 you need a 2.0.x version of maven.
>  >  >
>  >  >  Here are the artifacts:
>  >  >
>  >  >  1.3 (JDBC 3) version:
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/site
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/maven
>  >  >  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_3_RC6/
>  >  >
>  >  >  1.4 (JDBC 4) version:
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/site
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/maven
>  >  >  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_4_RC6/
>  >
>  >
>  > Sigs, hashes OK.
>  >  Source archives agree with SVN Tag, apart from doap,
>  >  release-process.txt and build-1.3.xml. I think these are OK.
>  >
>  >  It would be nice if the source manifest included Java source version,
>  >  but not essential.
>  >
>  >  The source and binary archives both contain the file
>  >
>  >  testpool.jocl
>  >
>  >  which comes from the src/test directory in SVN.
>  >
>  >  As a test file, surely it should not be there?
>  >
>  >  Not a blocker, but should be fixed for any future release.
>  >
>  >  The 1.3 code builds and tests OK with Java 1.4.2 and 1.5.0, but
>  >  generates a lot of stack traces from TestManual.testLogWriter().
>  >  Ideally the output should be suppressed.
>  >
>  >  However, compilation fails when using Java 1.6.0. Unfortunately the POM 
> says:
>  >
>  >  <!-- Target Java versions are actually 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 -->
>  >
>  >  Also README says:
>  >
>  >  >>>
>  >  This release of JDBC compiles with and supports JDK 1.4-1.5 (JDBC 3.0)
>  >  and JDK 1.6 (JDBC 4.0).  The 1.4 binary release requires JDK 1.6 (JDBC 
> 4.0).
>  >  The 1.3 binary release was built from filtered versions of the same 
> sources
>  >  using JDK 1.5.0_19.
>  >  <<<
>  >
>  >  The compilation errors seem to be all instances of concrete classes
>  >  failing to override abstract methods.
>  >
>  >  It may be possible to fix it so that the code will compile OK with
>  >  Java 1.6.0, but if not, the descriptions should be updated, as this is
>  >  unusual and unexpected behaviour (AFAIK, all other commons components
>  >  are upwards compatible).
>  >
>  >  I think this warrants a -1.
>  >
>  >  Sorry I was not able to test earlier release candidates.
>  >
>  >
>  >  >  Release notes (common version, ships with both)
>  >  >  http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>  >  >
>  >  >  Votes, please. This VOTE will close 01-January-2010 03:30 GMT.
>  >  >
>  >  >  [ ] +1 Proceed with release
>  >  >  [ ] +0 OK
>  >  >  [ ] -0 OK, but I would prefer...
>  >  >  [ ] -1 No, showstopper = ...
>  >  >
>  >  >  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

Reply via email to