hive-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "anishek (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HIVE-16642) New Events created as part of replv2 potentially break replv1
Date Fri, 12 May 2017 11:04:04 GMT


anishek commented on HIVE-16642:

* Wondering why the ReplicationV1BackwardCompatChecker is in hcatalog/webhcat/java-client/test,
couldnt it be directly itests/hive-unit
* I was thinking a bit more about the test case itself with the @FixedMethodOrdering. I think
calling the assertion method explicitly from each of the test cases would make it easier to
identify which test case containing events has lead to a failure. I think there might be a
way to achieve this using similar code as below example. Do let me know what do you think?


public class SampleTest {
  static class VerificationRule implements TestRule {
    static int a = 0;

    public Statement apply(Statement base, Description description) {
      return new Statement() {

        public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
          a += 1;
          assertTrue(a % 2 == 0);

  public VerificationRule rule = new VerificationRule();

  public void test1() {

  public void test2() {


> New Events created as part of replv2 potentially break replv1
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HIVE-16642
>                 URL:
>             Project: Hive
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: repl
>            Reporter: Sushanth Sowmyan
>            Assignee: Sushanth Sowmyan
>         Attachments: HIVE-16642.1.patch
> We have a couple of new events introduced, such as \{CREATE,DROP\}\{INDEX,FUNCTION\}
since the introduction of replv1, but those which do not have a replv1 ReplicationTask associated
with them.
> Thus, for users like Falcon, we potentially wind up throwing a IllegalStateException
if replv1 based HiveDR is running on a cluster with these updated events.
> Thus, we should be more graceful when encountering them, returning a NoopReplicationTask
equivalent that they can make use of, or ignore, for such newer events.
> In addition, we should add additional test cases so that we track whether or not the
creation of these events leads to any backward incompatibility we introduce. To this end,
if any of the events should change so that we introduce a backward incompatibility, we should
have these tests fail, and alert us to that possibility.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message