Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[test] Fix unreliable LockedModelExplorerTest #397

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lredor
Copy link
Contributor

@lredor lredor commented May 23, 2024

The test "testRefreshJobForModelExplorerView()" of "org.eclipse.sirius.tests.swtbot.modelexplorer.LockedModelExplorerTest" has failed at least once on a CI server with this stack:

junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: The job should be scheduled as one
lock notification has been send and ModelExplorer view is opened.
	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:57)
	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:22)
	at junit.framework.TestCase.assertTrue(TestCase.java:192)
	at org.eclipse.sirius.tests.swtbot.modelexplorer.LockedModelExplorerTest.testRefreshJobForModelExplorerView(LockedModelExplorerTest.java:132)

Maybe the job has not been scheduled before test on "refreshJobScheduled". The "wait until condition" should solve this random case.

The test "testRefreshJobForModelExplorerView()" of
"org.eclipse.sirius.tests.swtbot.modelexplorer.LockedModelExplorerTest"
has failed at least once on a CI server with this stack:
```
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: The job should be scheduled as one
lock notification has been send and ModelExplorer view is opened.
	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:57)
	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:22)
	at junit.framework.TestCase.assertTrue(TestCase.java:192)
	at org.eclipse.sirius.tests.swtbot.modelexplorer.LockedModelExplorerTest.testRefreshJobForModelExplorerView(LockedModelExplorerTest.java:132)
```

Maybe the job has not been scheduled before test on
"refreshJobScheduled". The "wait until condition" should solve this
random case.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant