Derby
  1. Derby
  2. DERBY-1871

testSecMec failing with what looks like just a error message change diff

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: 10.1.3.2
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Test
    • Labels:
      None
    • Bug behavior facts:
      Regression Test Failure

      Description

      The nightly tinderbox runs against 10.1 are getting the following diff. Though minor it would be nice to fix as it looks like the last issue stopping
      the runs from running with 0 diffs. This issue looks like it has been around since 5/5/06 (that is the latest history I found in the tinderbox reports).

      tinderbox history is at:
      http://www.multinet.no/~solberg/public/Apache/TinderBox-10.1/Limited/index_all.html

      latest instance of the problem:
      http://www.multinet.no/~solberg/public/Apache/TinderBox-10.1/testlog/SunOS-5.10_i86pc-i386/439213-derbyall_diff.txt

      actual diff:

                      • Diff file derbyall/derbynetclientmats/DerbyNetClient/derbynetmats/derbynetmats/testSecMec.diff
          • Start: testSecMec jdk1.5.0_04 DerbyNetClient derbynetmats:derbynetmats 2006-09-01 10:45:38 ***
            6 del
            < T5: jdbc:derby://localhost:20000/wombat;user=neelima;password=lee;securityMechanism=9 - EXCEPTION java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException is caught when initializing EncryptionManager 'Prime size must be multiple of 64, and can only range from 512 to 1024 (inclusive)'
            6a6
            > T5: jdbc:derby://localhost:20000/wombat;user=neelima;password=lee;securityMechanism=9 - EXCEPTION java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException is caught when initializing EncryptionManager 'Key size must be at least 512 bit'
            10 del
            < SECMEC_EUSRIDPWD:EXCEPTION testSecurityMechanism() java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException is caught when initializing EncryptionManager 'Prime size must be multiple of 64, and can only range from 512 to 1024 (inclusive)'
            10a10
            > SECMEC_EUSRIDPWD:EXCEPTION testSecurityMechanism() java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException is caught when initializing EncryptionManager 'Key size must be at least 512 bit'
            Test Failed.
          • End: testSecMec jdk1.5.0_04 DerbyNetClient derbynetmats:derbynetmats 2006-09-01 10:45:48 ***

        Activity

        Hide
        Sunitha Kambhampati added a comment -

        Some notes:
        1) This test (testSecMec.java on DerbyNetClient framework) passes OK on windows using Sun JCE as
        well as IBMJCE. Works fine with 10.1.3.2 on Sun vms 1.3.1,1.4.2,1.5, IBM jvms - 1.3.1,1.4.2,1.5
        2) The diff as shown in the description is a error message difference only. My guess is that maybe the
        JCE provider on the tinderbox solaris machine is not the same as the Sun JCE.

        One possible solution is trying to sed' this out or better -convert this test to a junit test ( derby1496).

        fwiw, the Sun jdk1.5.0 version that I tested with is
        java version "1.5.0_02"
        Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_02-b09)
        Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_02-b09, mixed mode)

        Show
        Sunitha Kambhampati added a comment - Some notes: 1) This test (testSecMec.java on DerbyNetClient framework) passes OK on windows using Sun JCE as well as IBMJCE. Works fine with 10.1.3.2 on Sun vms 1.3.1,1.4.2,1.5, IBM jvms - 1.3.1,1.4.2,1.5 2) The diff as shown in the description is a error message difference only. My guess is that maybe the JCE provider on the tinderbox solaris machine is not the same as the Sun JCE. One possible solution is trying to sed' this out or better -convert this test to a junit test ( derby1496). fwiw, the Sun jdk1.5.0 version that I tested with is java version "1.5.0_02" Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_02-b09) Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_02-b09, mixed mode)
        Hide
        Mike Matrigali added a comment -

        what confused me was that it seems to pass in the 10.2 nightly tinderbox but fail in the 10.1 nightly tinderbox. So either the environment is different or there is some fix that was already made that could be backported to 10.1. Anyone recognize this issue?

        Show
        Mike Matrigali added a comment - what confused me was that it seems to pass in the 10.2 nightly tinderbox but fail in the 10.1 nightly tinderbox. So either the environment is different or there is some fix that was already made that could be backported to 10.1. Anyone recognize this issue?
        Hide
        Andrew McIntyre added a comment -

        Marking minor, difference in exception text between jvms, consolidating with 10.1.4 bugs.

        Show
        Andrew McIntyre added a comment - Marking minor, difference in exception text between jvms, consolidating with 10.1.4 bugs.
        Hide
        Andrew McIntyre added a comment -

        Unsetting Fix Version on Unassigned issues. Sending mail for these because these should be reviewed to see if they are still valid issues.

        Show
        Andrew McIntyre added a comment - Unsetting Fix Version on Unassigned issues. Sending mail for these because these should be reviewed to see if they are still valid issues.
        Hide
        Kathey Marsden added a comment -

        The 10.1 tinderbox tests are no longer being run. Resolving as won't fix.

        Show
        Kathey Marsden added a comment - The 10.1 tinderbox tests are no longer being run. Resolving as won't fix.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Mike Matrigali
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development