From 81e3fd3127298b84e13e8d462918faa2cc1f7c6e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Siri Hansen Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:51:57 +0100 Subject: Fix release_handler_SUITE:otp_9395_check_old_code This test often fails dues to too high expectations. Don't expect the test to be more than 1000 times faster with no old code - it just doesn't happen! --- lib/sasl/test/release_handler_SUITE.erl | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'lib/sasl') diff --git a/lib/sasl/test/release_handler_SUITE.erl b/lib/sasl/test/release_handler_SUITE.erl index 94cffc988d..82b7a738bb 100644 --- a/lib/sasl/test/release_handler_SUITE.erl +++ b/lib/sasl/test/release_handler_SUITE.erl @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ otp_9417(cleanup,_Conf) -> %% OTP-9395 - performance problems when there are MANY processes %% Test that the procedure of checking for old code before an upgrade -%% can be started is "very much faster" when there is no old code in +%% can be started is faster when there is no old code in %% the system. otp_9395_check_old_code(Conf) when is_list(Conf) -> @@ -978,8 +978,8 @@ otp_9395_check_old_code(Conf) when is_list(Conf) -> "\tAfter purge: ~.2f sec~n" "\tT1/T2: ~.2f", [NProcs,length(Modules),T1/1000000,T2/1000000,X]), - if X < 1000 -> - ct:fail({not_enough_improvement_after_purge,round(X)}); + if X < 1 -> + ct:fail({no_improvement_after_purge,X}); true -> ok end; -- cgit v1.2.3