Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JDBC CTS 1.2.1

From: Vadim Nasardinov <vadimn(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JDBC CTS 1.2.1
Date: 2004-10-29 20:58:07
Message-ID: 200410291658.07731@vadim.nasardinov (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 14:15, Vadim Nasardinov wrote:
> Before attempting to tackle the 1.3.1 suite, I tried to get 1.2.1 up
> and running.  My results are as follows:
>     PASSED:  1778
>     FAILED:   510

I took a closer look at the failures and discovered that the situation
was a lot better than the above figures suggest.  It turns out that
that the testsuite only has 575 tests or so -- not 1700+, as one might
imagine by looking at the above.

(If you use the slightly newer exclusion list available from
then the number of tests goes down to 548.)

Each test is run in four different "vehicles": appclient, ejb, jsp,
and servlet.  If you sort passed and failed tests by vehicle, the
following picture emerges:

           | appclient | ejb | jsp | servlet
    PASSED |       551 | 129 | 549 |     549
    FAILED |        24 | 442 |  22 |      22
     TOTAL |       575 | 571 | 571 |     571

Note that the "ejb" vehicle is an outlier.  I haven't taken a close
look at it yet, but I suspect that the vast majority of tests that
fail in the ejb vehicle do so for reasons unrelated to the JDBC

A more correct breakdown is as follows:

   PASSED:  549
   FAILED:   22
   TOTAL:   571

Quite respectable, if you ask me.  Furthermore, I suspect that most
(if not all) of the remaining 22 failures are due to lack of support
for in/out parameters in stored procedures in the current backend, as
Dave Cramer pointed out in

The updated version of the script that counts passed and failed tests
is available here:


In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2004-10-29 21:30:07
Subject: Re: ps.setCharacterStream() and memory usage
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2004-10-29 16:57:58
Subject: Re: PGobject overhaul (was Re: tightening up on use of oid

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group