Need reviewers, jdk7 testing changes

Martin Buchholz martinrb at
Wed Dec 9 01:38:43 UTC 2009

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 16:42, Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at> wrote:

>> In theory, the process is supposed to prevent
>> regression test failures from ever creeping in - that's the whole point.
>> When they do (inevitably) creep in,
>> they are supposed to be aggressively targeted.
>> A gatekeeper demonstrates the failure to a developer,
>> and the developer is given X time units to fix the test breakage,
>> or face reversion of the breakage-inducing change.
> But it's not that simple. In some cases the cause of the failure is
> a change made to a different repository, by a different team,

Changes that get in this way are signs of process failure.
E.g. failing tests in java.util caused by hotspot commits
are signs the hotspot commit was inadequately tested.

> or even to the base system software via an update.
> The ProblemList.txt file was meant to deal with that situation,
> and also tests that are spuriously failing for unknown reasons.

I agree that flaky and platform-dependent failures are a big problem.

> When the gatekeeper can do what you say, that is great, and ideal.
> But I just don't see it happening that way in all situations.
>> I would like to see more effort devoted to fixing the tests
>> (or the code!) rather than adding infrastructure that might
>> have the effect of hiding the test failures.
> Sigh... I'm not trying to hide the failures, and if you haven't
> noticed, I have fixed quite a few tests myself.

I have noticed, and I do appreciate it.

I do some flaky test fixing myself.

> If anything, I'm making the fact that we have test failures more
> public, and the ultimate goal is to fix the tests.
> But I needed a baseline, a line in the sand, an expectation
> of what tests should always pass. And an ability to run all
> the tests in a timely manner.

I prefer the approach taken by my diff-javatest tool
of not caring about how many tests failed with the
reference jdk.  Just run them twice, and look for
*new* failures.

> Now it's time to go through the ProblemList.txt and do a little
> triage, file a few bugs, fix what tests can be fixed, and/or
> correct my ProblemList.txt file if I got it wrong.
>> BTW, I run regtests on java.util collections regularly,
>> but only on Linux.
> I think it is an expected situation that many developers can only
> run the tests on one platform.
> But do you expect the gatekeeper to run all the tests on all the
> platforms?
> And if for example, your tests fail on Windows you would be
> given X time units to fix it? Could you?

Of course, you want the perfect combination of nasty and nice.
For some test failures, it's unreasonable to expect the guilty party
to fix them.  But they should be prepared to be helpful.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list