crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Friedrich <m...@mafr.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Crunch 0.8.0 RC0
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:14:25 GMT
Yup, that sounds plausible. In any case, even with a sporadically
failing integration test, the release is still valid from a legal
point of view. It's up to the release manager to decide whether
we need to restart the ceremony :)

Regards,
  Matthias

On Thursday, 2013-11-07, Josh Wills wrote:
> That does sound plausible-- I actually just ran into that issue on another
> project I'm working on (i.e., like yesterday.)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Chao Shi <stepinto@live.com> wrote:
> > > I think this failure may depend on the execution order of tests, because:
> > >
> > > 1) I can reproduce this failure on some source tree, but cannot on
> > another
> > > 2) I can only reproduce it with "mvn install", but "mvn test
> > > -Dtest=org.apache.crunch.CheckpointIT" cannot
> > > 3) I was trying to add some printf in the case, after saving the file (I
> > > modified that CheckpointIT.java), I cannot reproduce it now.
> > >
> > > Does anyone have some clue?
> >
> > I have a feeling that this isn't due to order of execution. If it is
> > down to that, then as far as I can see it would mean that there is
> > something wrong with the TemporaryPath class, as that seems to be the
> > only thing that is shared between tests in that class.
> >
> > I'm actually wondering if this could be down to a timing issue in the
> > checkpointing code. The FileTargetImpl class checks if the
> > lastModified timestamp of the checkpointed file is greater than the
> > lastModified timestamp on the input source. Based on a check I just
> > did locally here on Mac OS X and on a Linux machine with ext4, the
> > time granularity of the lastModified timestamp on files is only
> > second-based, not millisecond-based. I'm thinking that this could be
> > an issue of the checkpointed file being created less than a second
> > after the startup of the test and creation of the source file
> > (although that seems really quick), and so the checkpointing wouldn't
> > think that the source file is older than the checkpointed file, so it
> > would run the full pipeline again (therefore resulting in two
> > execution stages instead of one.
> >
> > Does that sound plausible? If so, the only thing I can see that would
> > keep the code correct and prevent the test from failing would be to
> > add a Thread.sleep() into the test, but I hate having stuff like that
> > in tests.
> >
> > - Gabriel
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>

Mime
View raw message