We tried it out, and our tests ran much faster. We liked it so much
that we took the Ant 1.8.1 source and applied your change to it, so we
could use it for the time being. We put the source here:
http://github.com/cyrusinnovation/Apache-Ant
Please note that we have no intention of maintaining th
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> The change has been implemented in svn trunk[1] and may become part of
> the next Ant release. Using svn trunk my tests run as fast (or even
> faster) as they do using Ant 1.7.1.
Thank you very much! We'll definitely try it out.
> To be
On 2010-08-08, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I'll suggest to add a configuration option that will allow people to
> disbale those requests on the dev list, but right now I can't do more
> than confirm that forked JUnit tasks are slower with Ant 1.8.[01] than
> with 1.7.1.
The change has been implemente
On 2010-08-08, Michael Ludwig wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig schrieb am 08.08.2010 um 22:12 (+0200):
>> Finally I found the reason - the enhancement that is Bugzilla Issue
>> 31885. Ant writes output synchronously in order to support advanced
>> test UIs.
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
Stefan Bodewig schrieb am 08.08.2010 um 22:12 (+0200):
> Finally I found the reason - the enhancement that is Bugzilla Issue
> 31885. Ant writes output synchronously in order to support advanced
> test UIs.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31885
Great you found the cause! I mi
On 2010-08-02, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Now I can confirm I see some differences on the Windows machine as well.
> There is almost no difference for the tests that get run first (which
> take longer than the code-identical subsequent tests), so the warmup
> time hasn't changed much.
> I'll try to
On 2010-08-02, Laura Dean wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> ...
>> OK, I'll look into this when I get access to my Windows machine again
>> next week. It didn't take more than the small test case you provided to
>> see the difference, right?
> Right. The small
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
...
> OK, I'll look into this when I get access to my Windows machine again
> next week. It didn't take more than the small test case you provided to
> see the difference, right?
Right. The small test case was enough to see the difference
On 2010-07-28, Laura Dean wrote:
> I tried a few more things, with the following results:
Many thanks.
> * On windows, Ant 1.8 runs the tests slower regardless of JDK version
> (among 1.5.0_11, 1.6.0_17, and 1.6.0_21).
OK.
> * If I copy ant-junit.jar to the project directory and add it to the
I tried a few more things, with the following results:
* On windows, Ant 1.8 runs the tests slower regardless of JDK version
(among 1.5.0_11, 1.6.0_17, and 1.6.0_21).
* If I copy ant-junit.jar to the project directory and add it to the
classpath, nothing changes. The tests still run slower in 1.
It's definitely one JVM for all the tests. I added code to increment
a static counter and to print it when each test ran. The number never
reset to its initial value, which it would have done, if there had
been multiple VMs involved.
Laura
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrot
I switched our real project to forkmode="perTest" and found that it runs
even slower (much slower), so it's clearly doing better than one VM per
test. (I haven't ruled out something like one VM per class, though.) I
won't have time to play more with the code until Monday, but I will look at
it th
On 2010-07-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-07-22, Laura Dean wrote:
>> For the curious, I've created a simplified project here:
>> http://web.mit.edu/lgdean/Public/test-project.zip .
> I'll look into it.
Can't see any major differences between 1.7.1 and 1.8.1 on my Ubuntu
box. Unfortunatel
On 2010-07-22, Laura Dean wrote:
> My team has a unit test suite that ran in about a minute and a half
> with ant 1.6.5 (and 1.7.1), but now takes over 4 minutes with ant
> 1.8.1 (or 1.8.0). Has anyone else had this problem? The closest I've
> found via google is here, but it doesn't shed much l
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>
> what processor have you implemented in your testbed platform?
On this particular machine, windows reports:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 940 @ 2.93 GHz
> how much ram on your testbed platform?
6 GB
We've seen the same behavior on our less
what processor have you implemented in your testbed platform?
how much ram on your testbed platform?
//With fork:
\ANT\apache-ant-1.8.0\apps\test-project>ant test
Buildfile: build.xml
test:
[junit] Testsuite: SomeJUnitTest
[junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Time elapsed:
16 matches
Mail list logo
