Are you up to date? I fixed a bunch of those last week. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Richard Achmatowicz&lt;rachmato(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi > > I've just spent a lot of time tracking down some problems with tests > failing with two IPv6 addresses which lead me to some arquillian.xml > files, like this: > > <group qualifier="iiop"> > > <!-- The server than invokes the exposed EJB's --> > <container qualifier="iiop-client" default="true"> > <configuration> > <property name="jbossHome">${basedir}/target/jbossas-iiop-client</property> > <property name="javaVmArguments">${server.jvm.args} > -Djboss.inst=${basedir}/target/jbossas-iiop-client</property> > <property > name="serverConfig">${jboss.server.config.file.name:standalone.xml}</property> > <property name="managementAddress">${node0}</property> > <property name="managementPort">${as.managementPort:9999}</property> > </configuration> > </container> > > <!-- The server that expsoses EJB's via IIOP --> > <container qualifier="iiop-server" default="false"> > <configuration> > <property name="jbossHome">${basedir}/target/jbossas-iiop-server</property> > <property name="javaVmArguments">${server.jvm.args}</property> > <property > name="serverConfig">${jboss.server.config.file.name:standalone.xml}</property> > <!-- we use port offsets in the configuration build --> > <property name="managementAddress">${node1}</property> > <property name="managementPort">10099</property> > </configuration> > </container> > </group> > > These configurations use both separate node IPs *and* port offsets, and > yet the builds for the configurations only use port offsets. This > results in Arquillian looking in the wrong place for some servers have > actually started. For example, the arquillian.xml configuration above > tells arquillian to look for a host running at ${node1}:10099; but the > server configuration built by iiop-build.xml uses port offsets, so the > second server's managment address is ${node0}:10099. The test fails > because Arquillian can never connect to the host ${node1}:10099. We have > some tests which use a single node and port offsets, some tests which > use distinct nodes and port offsets, and I also expect some tests which > use distinct nodes and no offsets. > > In the past, we have used two approaches to run two servers on a single > node: using distinct IP addresses and the same ports or using a single > IP address and ports distinguished by port offsets. The first was the > standard case; the second was generally used for testing the port offset > mechanism, IIRC. We need one or the other but not both. > > Should we consider returning to that standard in which we use distinct > IPs and no offsets for the general case, and only use port offsets when > testing the port offset mechanism?. Using two separate interfaces rather > than one arguably a more realistic test than one interface with port > offsets. Also, having different multi-host configurations for each test > makes debugging more of a pain, as it is one less thing you can assume > about a test when trying to figure out what is going on. Also, looking > at different IPs in two sets of logs is easier and less error prone than > calculating offsets in your head in my experience. > > The problem configurations I saw were in integration/iiop, > integration/manual-mode, and integration/multi-node. > > Richard > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-as7-dev mailing list > jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev