Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Hudson build became unstable: buckminster-mdt-ocl-core-3.1-nightly #502


as you may have noted, the impact analyzer comes with a number of different configurable algorithms that we benchmarked intensely for various situations. After all evaluations, for the standard cases and in almost all situations the TracebackStep variant came out best. NavigationStep performed slightly worse. We still left the NavigationStep code in for interested parties to review and because we still think that if someone spends some time optimizing the navigation step graph layout there may be potential for this variant to perform better than the TracebackStep approach.

One of the weak parts of the algorithm, as you have discovered now, is the need to construct subclass trees in an attempt to prune navigation step graphs early in case certain combinations of type filters can be proven to never match an EObject. However, this assumes (and this may be an assumption too risky) that we can determine full subclass trees ahead of time.

That's the background on why the NavigationStep implementation tries to compute the set of all of a class's subclass which then triggers the load of all packages.

I'm fine with excluding all NavigationStep-based tests from Hudson right now. Shall I remove the respective launch configurations or Adolfo, can you do this (I'm currently traveling and have very unreliable Internet connections unfortunately; back in office on Friday).

Sorry, thanks and best,
-- Axel

On 5/19/2011 6:42 AM, Ed Willink wrote:


Users of the IA need a fix since reverting pivot.jar is not the
solution; it just demonstrates that the algorithm is unsound in larger
modeling environments.



On 18/05/2011 22:01, Ed Willink wrote:

This is wierd.

Surely caused by the changed of classpath for

But how can the pivot classpath affect impact analyzer tests, and why
just 15 out of 250 odd?

?? Is some access to the global package registry affected ??



On 18/05/2011 21:36, hudsonbuild@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3645 - Release Date: 05/18/11

Back to the top