Too late, already reverted. Guess I'll have to learn to rerevert now ;-)
EdB On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > The two tests passed locally for me on Mac, so that vindicates the code > you checked-in so you can avoid learning git revert for now. > > I’ll try it on Windows tonight. > > -Alex > > On 11/3/14, 11:39 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > > >You are right, I'll revert. I've never done that (still have love-hate > >relation with Git), so 'fingers crossed' ;-) > > > >EdB > > > > > > > >On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 11/3/14, 10:55 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> >> >I didn't run these locally, as I didn't expect changes to > >> >>SystemManager to > >> >> >affect anything but the very core of the SDK. > >> >> > >> >> I would be surprised if your changes made a difference as well but > >>you > >> >> never know. I thought the “unofficial” policy was that if your > >>checkins > >> >> are tied to a run that fails that you have to investigate, by at > >> >>minimum, > >> >> reverting or showing that the tests pass locally for you. > >> >> > >> > > >> >I "wrote" that policy ;-) But there weren't any tests that consistently > >> >failed, the failures have been all over the place. I could revert, but > >>my > >> >assessment was that not my changes, but something on the VM was the > >>root > >> >cause. > >> > >> I’m wondering if there is some easy way to show which tests are failing > >> more often than not. My records show that these two tests: > >> > >> gumbo/components/DataGrid/Properties/DataGrid_Properties_editable > >> Editable_twoWayBinding_test Failed AssertMethodValue (method cannot be > >> shown)(body:step 13) method returned , expected test1234 > >> > >> > >>gumbo/components/RichEditableText/Properties/RichEditableText_layout_test > >>3 > >> RichEditableText_Property_maxChars_1 Failed DispatchKeyEvent(body:step > >>2) > >> Timeout waiting for change from retEditable1 > >> > >> failed in runs: > >> > >> > >> 1137 > >> 1136 > >> 1135 > >> 1134 > >> 1133 > >> 1132 > >> 1129 > >> 1128 > >> 1126 > >> 1125 > >> 1124 > >> 1123 > >> > >> Yes, there were other intermittent failures, and run #1130 was full of > >>bad > >> stuff. But #1121 passed, then #1123 with your changes, fails, and those > >> two tests are the repeat offenders since. I have no idea how they can > >>be > >> broken by your changes either, but right or wrong, I think you have try > >>a > >> revert or see if the tests pass locally. > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Ix Multimedia Software > > > >Jan Luykenstraat 27 > >3521 VB Utrecht > > > >T. 06-51952295 > >I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
