curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-3.0 tests
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:41:34 GMT
Seems like I have uncovered another problem on the 3.0 branch.

It looks like the new (ish) connection handling stuff doesn't seem to be
working correctly for long session timeouts. Specifically, the test for
CURATOR-335 fails on the 3.0 branch when run with the new connection
handling, but works with the 'classic' connection handling.

It fails when asserting that the LOST event occurs after the server is
stopped.

I'm not going to have time to do much more digging for at least today, but
I have made a more targeted test case:

TestFramework:testSessionLossWithLongTimeout on
the long_session_timeout_issue branch.

if anyone has time to look before I do.

I think that this needs to be resolved before 3.0 can be released.
cheers


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> wrote:

> :D
>
> > Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331?
> No, let’s go with what we have.
>
> > On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, must still be recovering, I'm sure I saw it was being applied to the
> > 3.0 branch.
> >
> > I will merge it into master and 3.0.
> >
> > Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331? I have asked Scott
> > what his opinion is since its the TreeCache stuff. It looks ok to me
> though.
> > cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, that’s correct. It’s a patch against master. I’ll do the merge if
> >> you’re OK with it.
> >>
> >> -Jordan
> >>
> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hey Jordan,
> >>> The fix for CURATOR-335 looks good to me, but I'm wondering if it
> should
> >>> actually be applied against master and then merged into 3.0?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> no worries - get well.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for sorting this out Jordan. I'm pretty sick today so won't
> get
> >>>>> around to looking at it, but I will try over the weekend or really
> next
> >>>> week
> >>>>> On 3 Jun 2016 7:05 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> It sounds like curator is using a different algorithm since
it has
> >>>>>>> nodes sorting their position to determine if they have a
lease or
> >> not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No - I just added that as I thought there was a bug. But, now
I
> >> realize
> >>>>>> I’m wrong. So, it was correct all along. Thanks Ben.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Jordan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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