hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 01:52:17 GMT
We have the following method coverage:
Common ~60%
HDFS      ~80%
MR          ~70%
(better analysis will be available after our projects are connected to
Sonar, I think).

While method coverage isn't completely adequate answer to your
question, I'd say there is a possibility to sneak in some semantical
and even API changes which might go entirely unvalidated by the test
suites. It isn't very high, but it does exist.

A better approach to validate semantics is to run cluster tests (e.g.
system tests) which have a better potentials to exercise public APIs
than functional tests. There's HADOOP-7278 to address this for 0.22
(and potentially others)
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 14:59, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>>       Does "Hadoop compatibility" and the ability to say "includes Apache Hadoop"
only apply when we're talking about MR and HDFS APIs?
> It is confusing isn't it.
> We could go down the route java did and say that the API's are 'hadoop' and ours is just
a reference implementation of it. (but others pointed out, we don't want to become a certification
> Out of curiosity, how good is our test suite in exercising our APIs?
> Is it sophisticated enough to capture someone adding a functionality-changing patch (eg
the append one). and have it flag it as a test-failure?

View raw message