Re: Make SCXML IRP tests more CI-able
Jim Barnett <[email protected]> Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:34:59 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.voice |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I wanted to make sure that the timeout didn't fire too soon since that would cause the test to fail when it should succeed. Maybe I should add conf:timeOut and let each platform set the value as it sees fit. - Jim On 6/28/2014 8:09 AM, Stefan Radomski wrote: > Hey there, > > weÂ’d like to run the non-manual tests as part of continuous > integration. As such, weÂ’d be happy if we could reduce their runtime > somewhat. Worst offenders are: > > ecma/test175.scxml = 3.07 sec > ecma/test185.scxml = 2.07 sec > ecma/test186.scxml = 2.07 sec > ecma/test187.scxml = 10.07 sec > ecma/test207.scxml = 3.10 sec > ecma/test208.scxml = 5.07 sec > ecma/test210.scxml = 5.07 sec > ecma/test236.scxml = 2.07 sec > ecma/test237.scxml = 3.07 sec > ecma/test252.scxml = 2.07 sec > ecma/test409.scxml = 1.07 sec > ecma/test422.scxml = 5.09 sec > ecma/test423.scxml = 1.07 sec > ecma/test553.scxml = 3.07 sec > ecma/test554.scxml = 2.08 sec > ecma/test579.scxml = 2.07 sec > > Total Test time (real) = 65.79 sec > > Can we reduce the various delay expressions in these tests? IÂ’d vote > to cut them all to one tenth of their current values. That is 1s > becomes 100ms - I canÂ’t imagine that there is an implementation out > there that takes more than a millisecond to process a benign macrostep > and it cuts down total time for all automated tests to appr. 1/4th. > > Total Test time (real) = 18.83 sec > > ItÂ’s not exactly critical to do, but considering how often I run the > ECMA tests it more than justified this mail. > > Regards > Stefan -- Jim Barnett Genesys