drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From rahul challapalli <challapallira...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing advanced/functional tests
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:16:47 GMT
Jacques,

I am breaking down steps 1,2 & 3 into sub-tasks so we can add/prioritize
these tasks

Item #TaskSub-TaskCommentsPriority1*Publish the tests*




Remove Proprietary Data & Queries
0

Redact Propriety Data/Queries



Move tests into drill repo
This requires some refactoring to the framework code since the test
framework uses a 2-level directory structure



Organize the tests using a label based approach
This involves code changes and moving a lot of files. When doing a one time
push it might be better to do this before publishing the tests?


Each suite should be independentSome suites wrongly assume that the data is
present. They should be identified and fixed


Cleanup hardcoded dependencies during data generationSome data-gen scripts
have hard-coded references


Cleanup downloadsThe same dataset is being downloaded multiple times by
different suites


Licenses for downloadsThe framework downloads some files automatically.
These files are publicly available.
However before downloading them users need to agree to certain terms. By
using the framework users might be skipping this step. We should look into
this
2*Setup a cluster infrastructure to run the pre-commit tests*


3*Local debugging of tests*




Add an optional maven target for running tests on a local machine
Tests can launch an embedded drillbit or they can connect to a running
drillbit through zookeeper


Running suites which require additional setup (hive, hbase etc) should be
made optional

4*Documentation*




Running Tests (options available and also listing the asumed defaults)



Explaining how tests are organized



Process for adding a new suite



On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:

> Let's get number one done (tests out there so all community members can run
> them).  Then the whole community can work together to solve the rest.
>
> I don't think the base install should include integration test execution.
> I do think the tests should be in the main repo (as opposed to a
> secondary).
>
> We should strive to ultimately make running these integration tests a
> requirement for merging.  We need to complete all the steps before we can
> impose that.  I should be able to help on the global run component and
> supporting infrastructure.
>
> J
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:29 PM, rahul challapalli <
> challapallirahul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ramana,
> >
> > You are right. We are trying to address multiple issues here, but not
> with
> > a single solution. I am summarizing them
> >
> > 1. Tests should be visible to everyone (Implicit goal)
> > 2. Before applying a patch we should run tests in a clustered
> environment.
> > Parth had a suggestion(#4) in his original email.
> > 3. Developers should be able to debug majority of the tests on their
> local
> > environment. I made a few suggestions above to this regard
> >
> > - Rahul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Ramana I N <inramana@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One important thing which we need to be clear on here is what are we
> > trying
> > > to address?
> > >
> > > I feel there are two separate issues here and I do not think one
> solution
> > > will fit both the issues.
> > >
> > >    1. Allowing developers to run tests on their local box so they know
> > the
> > >    changes they have are not completely wrong.
> > >    2. Allowing transparency in the integration tests process which is
> > >    currently a black box.
> > >
> > > 1 is needed for developers to make changes and have an idea that their
> > > changes are not going to fail tests en masse in the integration suite.
> 2
> > is
> > > needed because its a prerequisite for changes to be committed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Ramana
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, rahul challapalli <
> > > challapallirahul@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ramana,
> > > >
> > > > Let me fill in more details.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Before we accept a patch we want to make sure the tests run in a
> > > cluster
> > > > environment. No exceptions here.
> > > > 2. We want  the contributors to be able to debug the failing tests on
> > > their
> > > > laptops in as many cases as possbile. This requires :
> > > >         1. Tests should run on top of a local file system. (Tests can
> > > > launch an embedded drillbit or they can connect to a running drillbit
> > > > through zookeeper)
> > > >         2. Running suites which require additional setup (hive, hbase
> > > etc)
> > > > should be made optional and sufficient documentation should be
> provided
> > > for
> > > > enabling and disabling these tests.
> > > > 3. In my opinion making these new tests part of drill would make it
> > > easier
> > > > for the developers to debug and run tests instead of having a
> different
> > > > repository. But as you said it might bloat the drill project
> > > >
> > > > - Rahul
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Hadoop family of projects has some software that integrates a
> > > > > continuous integration system so that every time a JIRA is marked
> as
> > > > > patch-available, the associated patch attached to the bug will have
> > > > > integration tests run against it.  I believe that there has been
> some
> > > > > process to use git hashes instead of patches.  The CI results are
> put
> > > > back
> > > > > on the JIRA.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is done using a fairly simple set of scripts.  Apache Yetus
is
> > > just
> > > > > forming as a direct-to-top-level spinoff from Hadoop
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposal is here (don't be fooled by the fact that it looks like
an
> > > > > incubation proposal):
> > > > >
> > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/YetusProposal
> > > > >
> > > > > Early code can be found here (don't guess that this is very real
> > yet).
> > > > > More links can be found in the proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/sekikn/pre-yetus/tree/master/precommit/docs
> > > > >
> > > > > The project has not yet been formed and there are no mailing lists
> or
> > > git
> > > > > repo yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Ramana I N <inramana@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As someone who worked on this for a while, including it as part
> of
> > > > drill
> > > > > > may bloat drill a bit too much. Also not a big fan of running
> > against
> > > > an
> > > > > > embedded drillbit. Does not replicate an actual production use
> > case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Additionally, setting up hive hbase and other components maybe
> > > painful
> > > > > and
> > > > > > unnecessary for most ppl. It would deter people from ever
> > > contributing
> > > > to
> > > > > > drill. We could spin up in memory hive and hbase but that's
> similar
> > > to
> > > > an
> > > > > > embedded drill bit. Does not replicate a production scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would prefer the hive way with a central Jenkins server hosted
on
> > aws
> > > > and
> > > > > > accessible to everyone.  Users should be able to submit a git
url
> > and
> > > > > that
> > > > > > should be able to deploy and fire off tests. Should then have
a
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > easily communicate failures to contributors and if success notify
> > the
> > > > > > commiters to commit the change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ps: if hive's way is open source maybe we can look into reuse
> > rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > doing it from scratch. Esp the Jenkins and configuration stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Ramana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 23, 2015, Parth Chandra <parthc@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drill devs use a set of tests that are not available as
part of
> > the
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > distribution. These tests are a pre-requisite for all commits,
> > but
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > available to any contributors outside the current devs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This thread is to discuss various options to make these
tests
> > > > > available.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assumptions and requirements  -
> > > > > > > 1) A functional test (as opposed to a unit test) needs
to be
> > closer
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > end user environment than a development environment. As
such,
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > running functional tests in a cluster environment, connect
> using
> > > > > > zookeeper
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > 2) Functional test will keep increasing in number, get
more
> > complex
> > > > and
> > > > > > > take a longer and longer time to execute as we go along.
> > > > > > > 3) Some requirements are:
> > > > > > >     a) We want to be strict in enforcing the pre-commit
> > > requirements,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > not penalize the contributor who has a minor fix.
> > > > > > >     b) All parts of the product (especially various 'certified'
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > plugins like Hive and Hbase should get tested)
> > > > > > >     c) It should be easy to debug issues when a test fails.
> Tests
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > fail deterministically. If a test fails, it should always
fail
> > and
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > fail in the same way (easier said than done).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some suggestions -
> > > > > > > 1) Tests should be a top-level maven module within the
drill
> > > project
> > > > > > >         a) We want  the integration tests to run as part
of the
> > > > drill's
> > > > > > > maven build process
> > > > > > >         b) The build step for the integration-tests module
> would
> > > > launch
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > embedded drillbit and runs tests against it
> > > > > > >         c) The tests will be a separate target so they
need not
> > be
> > > > run
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > the time
> > > > > > >  2) Tests should be divided into multiple suites that are
based
> > on
> > > > > > > components. For example a test suite for testing datatypes
will
> > > > contain
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > tests for various datatypes including complex types. A
> > contributor
> > > or
> > > > > > > developer can then run these tests more frequently as an
issue
> is
> > > > being
> > > > > > > addressed and run the entire suite only once before commit.
> > > > > > > 3) Provide the tests as a hosted service
> > > > > > > 4) Setup a bot to fire the test on an AWS cluster and post
the
> > > > results
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the JIRA  (Hive does this). Or some variant of this idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some questions -
> > > > > > > 1) What do some other projects do?
> > > > > > > 2) Are there any technologies we can leverage that will
make
> this
> > > > > easier?
> > > > > > > 3) How do we make it easier to debug failing tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please feel free to question the assumptions and requirements.
> Be
> > > > > > creative
> > > > > > > with your suggestions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Parth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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