curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-3.0 tests
Date Wed, 25 May 2016 13:36:30 GMT
Scott can you take a look?

-Jordan

> On May 25, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tree cache tests are still failing. I've tried a few times but no love:
> 
> TestTreeCacheEventOrdering>TestEventOrdering.testEventOrdering:151 actual 6
> expected -31:
> 
> I will have a look into what's going on in the morning. Given that these
> may take some messing about to fix up, do we just want to vote on 2.11.0
> separately, as that is all ready to go?
> cheers
> 
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> 
>> Great news. Thanks.
>> 
>> ====================
>> Jordan Zimmerman
>> 
>>> On May 25, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have fixed up the test case, all good now.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Looks like it was introduced with the schema validation stuff. It now
>> does
>>>> an ACL check prior to the backgrounding call. Because the unit test
>> uses a
>>>> bogus ACL provider it just throws an exception
>>>> 
>>>>       final String adjustedPath =
>>>> adjustPath(client.fixForNamespace(givenPath,
>> createMode.isSequential()));
>>>>       List<ACL> aclList = acling.getAclList(adjustedPath);
>>>> 
>>>> client.getSchemaSet().getSchema(givenPath).validateCreate(createMode,
>> data,
>>>> aclList);
>>>> 
>>>>       String returnPath = null;
>>>>       if ( backgrounding.inBackground() )
>>>>       {
>>>>           pathInBackground(adjustedPath, data, givenPath);
>>>> 
>>>> So, I guess the answer is to get the test to force a failure in a
>>>> different way. With the UnhandledErrorListener, the expectation is that
>>>> this only gets called on backgrounding operations?
>>>> cheers
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Same on the master branch, but it passes there, so maybe something has
>>>>> legitimately broken the test. Will let you know if I get stuck.
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me know if you need help.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It might be a bad merge. Have you compared it to the master branch?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -JZ
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:31 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>> There's a test TestFrameworkBackground:testErrorListener that
is
>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>> consistently on the CURATOR-3.0 branch.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I can't see how it has ever worked. It seems to try and provoke
an
>>>>>> error
>>>>>>> via a bad ACL provider.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But this ACL provider is called by the CreateBuilderImpl prior
to the
>>>>>>> backgrounding call, which means that the exception that it throws
>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>> in the main Thread of the unit test. So, it just throws an
>>>>>>> UnsupportedOperationException which is propogated up the stack
at
>> which
>>>>>>> point the unit test fails.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, I will look at fixing this, but I just don't understand how
it
>> ever
>>>>>>> worked?
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message