We are seeing intermittent build/test failures with the gpclient tests:
-------------------------------------------------------
T E S T S
-------------------------------------------------------
Running org.epics.gpclient.PVEventRecorderTest
Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.603 sec
Running org.epics.gpclient.datasource.DataSourceImplementationTest
Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.032 sec
Running org.epics.gpclient.PassiveRateDecouplerTest
Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 25.795 sec
Running org.epics.gpclient.ActiveRateDecouplerTest
Tests run: 3, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.03 sec <<<
FAILURE!
activeScanningRate(org.epics.gpclient.ActiveRateDecouplerTest) Time elapsed:
1.022 sec <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected: a value less than or equal to <5>
but: <6> was greater than <5>
From a distance, this looks like the test is making assumptions on parallelism/timing/resource usage on the host that are not always true.
Is there a way to improve robustness of this test?
Reactions are currently unavailable
We are seeing intermittent build/test failures with the gpclient tests:
------------------------------------------------------- T E S T S ------------------------------------------------------- Running org.epics.gpclient.PVEventRecorderTest Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.603 sec Running org.epics.gpclient.datasource.DataSourceImplementationTest Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.032 sec Running org.epics.gpclient.PassiveRateDecouplerTest Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 25.795 sec Running org.epics.gpclient.ActiveRateDecouplerTest Tests run: 3, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.03 sec <<< FAILURE! activeScanningRate(org.epics.gpclient.ActiveRateDecouplerTest) Time elapsed: 1.022 sec <<< FAILURE! java.lang.AssertionError: Expected: a value less than or equal to <5> but: <6> was greater than <5>From a distance, this looks like the test is making assumptions on parallelism/timing/resource usage on the host that are not always true.
Is there a way to improve robustness of this test?