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 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:22:17 GMT
That was my assessment too, but the amount of time to get a LOST event
seems incorrect to me. It takes 4/3 session timeout seconds, where I think
it should take session timeout seconds
On 13 Jun 2016 12:02 PM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:

> Sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this…
>
> I don’t see what the problem is with testSessionLossWithLongTimeout(). The
> session timeout is being set to timing.forWaiting().milliseconds(). The
> test on line 116 only waits timing.forWaiting().milliseconds() for timeout
> and will almost always fail. If I change this line to:
>
>         timing.multiple(2).forWaiting().milliseconds()
>
> The test succeeds. This seems correct to me.
>
> -Jordan
>
> > On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:41 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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