hadoop-zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: test failures in branch-3.2
Date Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:15:20 GMT
Todd Greenwood wrote:
> On a plus note, I'm finding that this morning, @work rather than @home,
> the tests continue to completion. However, there are other issues that
> I'll bring up on the dev list, such as a requirement to have autoconf
> installed, and problems in the create-cppunit-configure task that can't
> exec libtoolize, fun stuff like tha.

Great, good to hear. At some point figuring out what's up with your 
@home would be interesting to us. :-)

Yes, there are some basic requirements such as autotool, cppunit, etc... 
but please do raise all this on the dev list.

> I need to proceed with the manual patches to branch-3.2, as I am under
> some time constraints to get our infrastructure deployed such that QA
> can start playing with it. However, I'll switch to 3.2.1 as soon as I
> can.

Understood.

Patrick

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:phunt@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:38 AM
>> To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org; Todd Greenwood
>> Subject: Re: test failures in branch-3.2
>>
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Sorry for the clutter/confusion. Usually things aren't this cumbersome
> ;-)
>> In particular:
>>    1 committer is on vacation
>>    Mahadev's been out sick for multiple days
>>    I'm sick but trying to hang in there, but def not 100%
>>
>> Hudson (CI) has been offline for effectively the past 3 weeks (that
>> gates all our commits) and is just now back but flaky.
>>
>> 3.2 had some bugs that we are trying to address, but the afore
> mentioned
>> issues are slowing us down. Otw we'd have all this straightened out by
>> now ....
>>
>> At this point you should move this discussion to the dev list - Apache
>> doesn't really like us to discuss code changes/futures here (user
> list).
>> On that list you'll also see the plan for upcoming releases - I
> mention
>> all this because we are actively working toward 3.2.1 which will
> include
>> the JIRAs slated for that release (I'm sure you've seen).
>>
>> If you can wait a bit you might be able to avoid some pain by using
> the
>> upcoming 3.2.1 release. Once the patches land into that branch your
>> issues will be resolved w/o you needing to manually apply patches,
> etc...
>>
>> I did look at the files you attached - it looks fine so I'm not sure
> the
>> issue. The form of this test makes it harder - we are verifying that
> the
>> log contains sufficient information when a particular error occurs. We
>> fiddle with log4j in order to do this, which means that the log you
> are
>> including doesn't specify the problem.
>>
>> Try instrumenting this test with a try/catch around the content of the
>> test method (all the code in the failing method inside a big try/catch
>> is what I mean). Then print the error to std out as part of the catch.
>> That should shed some light. If you could debug it a bit that would
> help
>> - because we aren't seeing this in our environment.
>>
>> Again, sort of a moot point if you can wait a week or so...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Todd Greenwood wrote:
>>> Inline.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:phunt@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:57 PM
>>>> To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: test failures in branch-3.2
>>>>
>>>> Todd Greenwood wrote:
>>>>> Starting w/ branch-3.2 (no changes) I applied patches in this
> order:
>>>>> 1. Apply ZOOKEEPER-479.patch. Builds, but HierarchicalQuorumTest
>>> fails.
>>>>> 2. Apply ZOOKEEPER-481.patch. Fails to build, b/c of missing file
> -
>>>>> PortAssignment.java.
>>>>>
>>>>> PortAssignment.java was added by Patrick as part of
>>> ZOOKEEPER-473.patch,
>>>>> which is a pretty hefty patch (> 2k lines) and touches a large
>>> number of
>>>>> files.
>>>> Hrm, those patches were probably created against the trunk. We'll
> have
>>>> to have separate patches for trunk and 3.2 branch on 481.
>>>>
>>>> If you could update the jira with this detail (481 needs two
> patches,
>>>> one for each branch) that would be great!
>>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>>>> 3. Apply ZOOKEEPER-473.patch. Builds, but QuorumPeerMainTest fails
>>> (jvm
>>>>> crashes).
>>>> 473 is "special" (unique) in the sense that it changes log4j while
> the
>>>> the vm is running. In general though it's a pretty boring test and
>>>> shouldn't be failing.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure you have the right patch file? there are 2 patch files
> on
>>>> the JIRA for 473, make sure that you have the one from 7/16, NOT
> the
>>> one
>>>> from 7/15. Check that the patch file, the correct one should NOT
>>> contain
>>>> changes to build.xml or conf/log4j* files. If this still happens
> send
>>> me
>>>> your build.xml, conf/log4j* and QuroumPeerMainTest.java files in
> email
>>>> for review. I'll take a look.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've annotated the files w/ their date while downloading:
>>> 112700 2009-07-31 11:02 ZOOKEEPER-473-7-15.patch
>>> 110607 2009-07-31 11:01 ZOOKEEPER-473-7-16.patch
>>>
>>> It appears I applied the 7-16 patch, as that is the matching file
> size
>>> of the patch file I applied.
>>>
>>> If there are to be multiple patch files for multiple branches (3.2,
>>> trunk, etc.) would it make sense to lable the patch files
> accordingly?
>>> Requested files in attached tar.
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [junit] Running
>>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.QuorumPeerMainTest
>>>>>     [junit] Running
>>>>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.QuorumPeerMainTest
>>>>>     [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Time elapsed: 0
>>> sec
>>>>>     [junit] Test
>>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.QuorumPeerMainTest
>>>>> FAILED (crashed)
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> Test Log
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> Testsuite: org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.QuorumPeerMainTest
>>>>> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Time elapsed: 0 sec
>>>>>
>>>>> Testcase: testBadPeerAddressInQuorum took 0.004 sec
>>>>>     Caused an ERROR
>>>>> Forked Java VM exited abnormally. Please note the time in the
> report
>>>>> does not reflect the time until the VM exit.
>>>>> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Forked Java VM exited
>>> abnormally.
>>>>> Please note the time in the report does not reflect the time until
>>> the
>>>>> VM exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:phunt@apache.org]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 PM
>>>>> To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: test failures in branch-3.2
>>>>>
>>>>> Todd Greenwood wrote:
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>> [Todd] Yes, I believe "address in use" was the problem w/
> FLETest.
>>> I
>>>>>> assumed it was a timing issue w/ respect to test A not fully
>>> releasing
>>>>>> resources before test B started.
>>>>> Might be, but actually I think it's related to this:
>>>>> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/addrinuse.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick

Mime
View raw message