Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

a table unit test failure on new CI server #210

Closed
gcheng opened this issue Jan 23, 2013 · 7 comments
Closed

a table unit test failure on new CI server #210

gcheng opened this issue Jan 23, 2013 · 7 comments

Comments

@gcheng
Copy link

gcheng commented Jan 23, 2013

Dev estimate: 3
Test estimate: 0

com.microsoft.windowsazure.services.table.TableServiceIntegrationTest.settingTimeoutPrefixedFromConfigWorks

Failing for the past 3 builds (Since #24 )
Took 0.37 sec.
add description
Error Message

Exception should have been thrown
Stacktrace

java.lang.AssertionError: Exception should have been thrown
at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:93)
at com.microsoft.windowsazure.services.table.TableServiceIntegrationTest.settingTimeoutPrefixedFromConfigWorks(TableServiceIntegrationTest.java:1206)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:601)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:45)
at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:42)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:263)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:68)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:47)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:231)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:60)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:229)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:50)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:222)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:30)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:300)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.execute(JUnit4Provider.java:236)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:134)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:113)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:601)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethodWithArray(ReflectionUtils.java:189)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ProviderFactory$ProviderProxy.invoke(ProviderFactory.java:165)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ProviderFactory.invokeProvider(ProviderFactory.java:85)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:103)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:74)

@ghost ghost assigned jcookems Jan 23, 2013
@gcheng
Copy link
Author

gcheng commented Jan 23, 2013

this is the location of the ci project

http://azuresdkci.cloudapp.net/job/azure-sdk-for-java-pr%20dev%20win2k12/

@jcookems
Copy link
Contributor

I took a look at the test, and the intent is to test "Load a config by name". The config has a short timeout set, so the verification is to make sure that any requests fail with a timeout error.

So, either the test is failing because it is not properly reading the config (product error) or because the project is in Azure, close to the table service, the request is processed quick enough to not timeout (test error).

I'm going to try to rewrite the test to be more targeted in what it tests, so it only reports product errors.

@gcheng
Copy link
Author

gcheng commented Jan 23, 2013

intriguing...

@christav
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds to me like a bad basic design, if the only way to test if loading config failed is by waiting for timeouts.

Redoing the test is good, but perhaps we have a bigger issue here?

@jcookems
Copy link
Contributor

Submitted the PR. Need to wait now for the CI server to rebuild to see if the test is fixed.

@gcheng
Copy link
Author

gcheng commented Jan 25, 2013

I think there are no more failures on CI server, recommend closing.

@jcookems
Copy link
Contributor

Verified

g2vinay pushed a commit to g2vinay/azure-sdk-for-java that referenced this issue Mar 4, 2019
navalev pushed a commit to navalev/azure-sdk-for-java that referenced this issue Dec 24, 2019
navalev pushed a commit to navalev/azure-sdk-for-java that referenced this issue Dec 24, 2019
* indexers create - wip

* Adds APIs for checking synonym map existence (Azure#209)

* Adds APIs for checking synonym map existence

* Adds createOrUpdateSynonymMap client methods (Azure#210)

* createOrUpdateSynonym map if not exists tests (Azure#216)

createOrUpdateSynonymMapIfNotExistsFailsOnExistingResource and createOrUpdateSynonymMapIfNotExistsSucceedsOnNoResource tests

* createOrUpdateSynonym map if exists tests (Azure#217)

createOrUpdateSynonymMapIfExistsSucceedsOnExistingResource and createOrUpdateSynonymMapIfExistsSucceedsOnExistingResource tests

* assertReflectionEquals - index management objects (Azure#214)

* removing index management equal comparison annd replacing with reflection equal method

* Indexers - createOrUpdate, List indexers and matching UTs

* style fix

* fix merge issues

* style fixes

* changed list overload

* changed list overload

* changed list overload

* fix style
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 13, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants