On 20 Feb 2014, at 13:32, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
This test is really fragile... If you look at the code you'll see that it has already been patched to cope with some defects under linux.
- Maybe one try is to increase the wait time? - make sure the fork happens at higher priority than the surrounding thread - skip it :P
Someone should make a choice...
On 2014-02-20, at 11:09, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Camillo (as you wrote this stuff),
The test below often fails on the CI servers (as now again in the last two builds), timing tests are brittle there.
Is this test necessary the way it is written now, what do you think ?
Sven
Begin forwarded message:
From: no-reply@ci.inria.fr Subject: [regression reporter]regression occurred Date: 26 Jan 2014 16:17:25 GMT+1 To: marcus.denker@inria.fr, estebanlm@gmail.com, sven@stfx.eu
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-A-L/label...
1 regressions found. KernelTests.Methods.BlockClosureTest.testOnForkErrorTakesLessThanOneSecond