asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Migration of git repository
Date Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:29:00 GMT
So is there some way to fix change-topic and other user experience 
issues that separation "causes"?
I.e, could we have our cake (separated code bases for multiple Hyracks 
consumers) and eat it too in
AsterixDB (not feeling added pain, but having a fairly seemless 
experience if you do both-level stuff)?

On 6/2/15 11:59 PM, Till Westmann wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 22:45, Yingyi Bu <buyingyi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I haven't tried working on multiple Hyracks branches at the same time, so
I haven't experienced this. This seems like a working method error, though. If >>you're
working with two things that are "the same version" (even if that's a snapshot version), you'll
need to use separate Maven repositories to install >>them. In fact, merging the two
git repositories would do nothing to fix this problem, will it? If the proposal is to put
the two source repositories in the >>same git repo but otherwise leave them untouched,
then nothing would change in the build process. It's possible I'm missing something there,
though.
>> Is there a way to use multiple mvn repositories on the same machine?   I used to
think mvn always installs artifacts to the directory ~/.m2/repository.
>> I guess we just need to have a root-level pom and leave hyracks and asterixdb untouched.
 Then, a single root-level "mvn package ..." will build everything without requiring installing
hyracks first.  It's just like what we currently do for hyracks and algebricks.  Then, builds/tests
do not leave side-effects in ~/.m2/repository.
> Great question! I just looked into this a bit (but I didn't try it) and the docs seem
to suggest that
> a) you should be able to specify the local repository in a settings.xml and that
> b) you should be able to specify the settings.xml on the maven command line.
> So it should be possible to do that - and with some shell magic I think that it should
even be possible to do that in a largely invisible way.
>
>>>> As for manually scheduling Asterix Jenkins jobs, that sounds like it's only
a problem where your Hyracks change breaks an existing public API. That >>would be obviated
by having true API testing inside of Hyracks, which is something that we should have regardless
of any decisions about source >>locations.
>> I agree that's the right software engineering way. Going forward, we do need to add
more unit tests in hyracks and asterixdb. But considering the resource constraints, I'm not
sure whether (or when) we can have a complete API test suite for hyracks/algebricks:
>> 1)  both hyracks and algebricks public APIs allow an arbitrary input DAG (a logical
plan or a hyracks job).  It's hard to enumerate all possibilities in hyracks/algebricks tests.
 My experience is that when we see a broken AQL query,  we fix it in both hyracks/asterixdb
codebases,  and verify it with the AQL query. In those cases,  there might be no need to have
yet-another verbose hyracks/algebricks test.
>> 2)  even if we have a comprehensive test suite for hyracks,  I'm not sure whether
it can guarantee to pass asterixdb tests because the current asterixdb test suite covers a
lot of edge cases in the hyracks runtime, LSM, and algebricks.
> One way to use existing clients as tests for Hyracks could be to set up a system that
runs the tests of the existing versions of the clients against a new version of Hyracks -
ideally all client isolated from each other and in parallel to keep turn around times low.
> Does that sound feasible?
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
>> Anyway, if the repositories have to be separated, it would be nice that the "change-topic"
issue can be fixed.
>>
>> Best,
>> Yingyi
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Chris Hillery <chillery@lambda.nu> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Yingyi Bu <buyingyi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In my opinion,  merging the repository doesn't break the separation of hyracks
and asterixdb, because the dependencies are controlled by mvn pom files.
>>> That wasn't the separation I was talking about. I meant API separation. As it
is now, when we make a change to both Asterix and Hyracks, we are forced to consider the API
implications, or at least they are put out there in a very clear way that we need to look
at. If we merge them, people will (rightly) treat the whole thing as one product, and there
will be no brakes on making wide-ranging API changes.
>>>
>>> (As an aside: I don't trust Maven's pom files to do a good job of keeping the
dependency management clean. In fact I trust it to do precisely the opposite, by making it
both easier to screw up the dependencies and harder to update them in future.)
>>>
>>> Again, my point is this: If we truly believe that Hyracks is a re-usable component,
it should be treated as such from source to build to delivery. By merging in Asterix, we are
saying that Asterix is "more equal" than others Hyracks clients, to the point that we're tacitly
willing to break those other clients in favor of simplifying Asterix development. If that
is a fair and true statement, well, then, sure, let's merge them.
>>>
>>>> 1) It forces those hyracks-only changes to pass asterixdb regression tests.
 Currently hyracks-only change are not verified by asterixdb tests.
>>> This is a good point, I will admit. However, I think this same goal can be met
in other ways. My strong preference would be to create a set of true API tests inside of Hyracks,
which both document and test the external Hyracks API. That will make API-breaking changes
in future much easier to spot, and also make it clear when Asterix is using internal APIs
that it should not.
>>>   
>>>> 2) On my local machine,  I don't need to always install hyracks and then
verify asterixdb from time to time.  Especially, switching branches seems painful because
the installed hyracks snapshot is overwritten from time to time.
>>> I haven't tried working on multiple Hyracks branches at the same time, so I haven't
experienced this. This seems like a working method error, though. If you're working with two
things that are "the same version" (even if that's a snapshot version), you'll need to use
separate Maven repositories to install them. In fact, merging the two git repositories would
do nothing to fix this problem, will it? If the proposal is to put the two source repositories
in the same git repo but otherwise leave them untouched, then nothing would change in the
build process. It's possible I'm missing something there, though.
>>>   
>>>> 3) I only need to make one code review request and one jenkins job.  Currently
I need to manually change the topic of my asterixdb gerrit CL every time before I update my
hyracks CL, and then manually schedule jenkins to run a new asterixdb job.  If I forget to
schedule the jenkins job, the asterixdb CL is still shown to be "verified by jenkins".
>>> This is a problem, but it's a problem in commit validation, not in the source.
Modifying the source to work around these issues is still a bad idea IMHO.
>>>
>>> The "change-topic" issue could be fixed with a bit of development work (have
the topic point to a change, rather than a specific patchset on the change, so you only need
to set it once, for instance).
>>>
>>> As for manually scheduling Asterix Jenkins jobs, that sounds like it's only a
problem where your Hyracks change breaks an existing public API. That would be obviated by
having true API testing inside of Hyracks, which is something that we should have regardless
of any decisions about source locations.
>>>
>>> In summary / repeating myself again: yes, we have some problems because Hyracks
and Asterix are in seperate repositories. But those problems are pointing out true issues
with our development and processes. Merging the repositories isn't fixing those problems,
it's sweeping them under the rug. Long term we would be much better off to identify, isolate,
and fix the problems themselves.
>>>
>>> Ceej
>>> aka Chris Hillery
>>>
>>>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message