Bug 270766 - 3 failures while running JDT/Text performance tests
Summary: 3 failures while running JDT/Text performance tests
Status: VERIFIED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Text (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux-GTK
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.5 M7   Edit
Assignee: JDT-Text-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: test
Depends on:
Blocks: 270824
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2009-04-01 09:38 EDT by Frederic Fusier CLA
Modified: 2009-04-15 09:59 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Frederic Fusier CLA 2009-04-01 09:38:24 EDT 
Verifying results for build I20090331-0901, I see 3 failures in JDT/Text
performance tests:

1) MoveLineTest.test(MoveLineTest.java:64)
2) AbstractJavaReplaceAllTest.test(AbstractJavaReplaceAllTest.java:71)
3) JavaReplaceAllWithQuickDiffTest.test(JavaReplaceAllWithQuickDiffTest.java:36)
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2009-04-01 10:28:34 EDT 
>2) AbstractJavaReplaceAllTest.test(AbstractJavaReplaceAllTest.java:71)
>3)
>JavaReplaceAllWithQuickDiffTest.test(JavaReplaceAllWithQuickDiffTest.java:36)

These are both the same: probably something else ran on the machine. The AFE means that the UI needed much too long to come back.


The other one looks strange. Let's see what the next test result brings.
Comment 2 Dani Megert CLA 2009-04-08 05:20:04 EDT 
We could not reproduce this locally and the last perf tests (including I20090407-1430) did not crash.
Comment 3 Dani Megert CLA 2009-04-08 10:09:29 EDT 
This is not a performance issue ;-)
Comment 4 Frederic Fusier CLA 2009-04-08 10:42:34 EDT 
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is not a performance issue ;-)
> 
I agree but a problem in performance tests, hence I thought it makes sense that these two keywords were set.

This was a personal guide line of to have an easy way to find bugs related to performance tests, but if it's not ok for you, then I can use another way to identify such bugs (typically blocking bugs of bug 2708824 should do the same since I created this root bug...)
Comment 5 Dani Megert CLA 2009-04-08 10:47:24 EDT 
It's work related to perf hence ok to block the root bug but for me the 'performance' keyword is there to identify a performance problem.
Comment 6 Frederic Fusier CLA 2009-04-15 09:59:35 EDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> We could not reproduce this locally and the last perf tests (including
> I20090407-1430) did not crash.
> 
Verified using I20090414-0800 performance results.