Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-11 Thread Mark Thomas
On 11/04/2023 18:14, Christopher Schultz wrote: Mark, On 4/11/23 11:49, Mark Thomas wrote: On 06/04/2023 09:18, Mark Thomas wrote: OK, that isn't going to work. It is going to have to be the back-port of the switch to ReentrantLock. Those back-ports have been completed along with the final b

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-11 Thread Christopher Schultz
Mark, On 4/11/23 11:49, Mark Thomas wrote: On 06/04/2023 09:18, Mark Thomas wrote: OK, that isn't going to work. It is going to have to be the back-port of the switch to ReentrantLock. Those back-ports have been completed along with the final bits and pieces I had on my TODO list. I need t

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-11 Thread Mark Thomas
On 06/04/2023 09:18, Mark Thomas wrote: OK, that isn't going to work. It is going to have to be the back-port of the switch to ReentrantLock. Those back-ports have been completed along with the final bits and pieces I had on my TODO list. I need to run the tests ob various platforms but assu

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-06 Thread Mark Thomas
On 05/04/2023 17:56, Mark Thomas wrote: On 05/04/2023 17:46, Rémy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Mark Thomas wrote: On 05/04/2023 13:01, Mark Thomas wrote: Good news and bad news. The good news is that the issues were with the test. The test has to use statics to pass dat

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-05 Thread Mark Thomas
On 05/04/2023 17:46, Rémy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Mark Thomas wrote: On 05/04/2023 13:01, Mark Thomas wrote: Good news and bad news. The good news is that the issues were with the test. The test has to use statics to pass data to Endpoint instances and they weren't be

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-05 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 05/04/2023 13:01, Mark Thomas wrote: > > Good news and bad news. > > > > The good news is that the issues were with the test. The test has to use > > statics to pass data to Endpoint instances and they weren't being reset > > properly betwee

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-05 Thread Mark Thomas
On 05/04/2023 13:01, Mark Thomas wrote: Good news and bad news. The good news is that the issues were with the test. The test has to use statics to pass data to Endpoint instances and they weren't being reset properly between tests. With that fixed there were 2 failures that are both fixed by

Re: BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-05 Thread Mark Thomas
Good news and bad news. The good news is that the issues were with the test. The test has to use statics to pass data to Endpoint instances and they weren't being reset properly between tests. With that fixed there were 2 failures that are both fixed by the proposed patch. The bad news is th

BZ 66508 and tagging progress update

2023-04-04 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi all, I now have a test case for BZ 66508. Having parameterized it for NIO/NIO2, useAsyncIO = true/false and sending messages from the server on a container thread or not I think I am making progress. Without the patch 6 out of 8 tests fail. With the patch 3 out of 8 tests fail. I'm not s