ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Stop nodes after test by default - IGNITE-6842
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:12:23 GMT
Hi, thank you!

I've found several suspicious fails: such test fails have rate less than
1%, it is probably new failures.

It would be great if we can fix it before merge. Could you address this
fails?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

IgniteCacheTestSuite5: IgniteCacheStoreCollectionTest.testStoreMap (fail
rate 0,0%)
IgniteCacheTestSuite5:
CacheLateAffinityAssignmentTest.testDelayAssignmentClientJoin (fail rate
0,0%)
IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEviction (fail rate
0,0%)
IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEvictionIndexing
(fail rate 0,0%)
IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEviction (fail rate
0,0%)
IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEvictionIndexing (fail
rate 0,0%)

IgniteBinarySimpleNameMapperCacheFullApiTestSuite:
GridCachePartitionedNearDisabledMultiNodeWithGroupFullApiSelfTest.testWithSkipStoreTx
(fail rate 0,0%)

вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:04, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:

> Yep, link may not be correct.
>
> Here is correct version:
> TC: *
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead
> <
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead
> >*
>
>
> вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:41, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > could you please provide link to TC run on your PR? It seems link
> provided
> > points to run of master. In changes field you may select pull/3542/head
> > before starting RunAll.
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > this change is related to our test framework, so change may affect your
> > tests. Please join to review
> > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:14, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I think, I've done with this issue, what should we do next?
> > >
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542
> > > Upsource: https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502
> > > TC:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=723895&personal=false&buildTypeId=&tab=vcsModificationTests
> > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 14:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind stopAllGrids call should be kept in afterTestsStop(). If
> > > > developer forgot to call super(), he will see exception from
> > > > beforeTestsStart()
> > > > added by you.
> > > >
> > > > If you think patch is ready to be reviewed, please change JIRA status
> > to
> > > > "Patch Available".
> > > >
> > > > Optionally you can create Upsource review. It would be easier for
> > > multiple
> > > > reviewers to handle this patch. This test framework is used by all
> > > Igniters
> > > > so Upsource would be good option (https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> > ).
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've made some changes based on our previous discusstions, please
> see
> > > PR
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > > 1) Remove duplicated code for stopGrid (by index and by name);
> > > > > 2) Add new method that thows exception if not all grids haven't
> > stopped
> > > > > correctly;
> > > > > 3)  Change tests that have been affected by this changes;
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I have some thoughts for clarification:
> > > > > 1) beforeTestsStart() - I expect here in subtests that grids are
> not
> > > > > started yet. Am I right?
> > > > > 2) I think we should call stopAllGrids in tearDown method. So, if
> in
> > > some
> > > > > cases we'll override afterTestsStop in subclasses and forgot to
> call
> > > > > super() it won't lead us to exception.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542
> > > > > [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=717275
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 18:28, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll add this comment's for JIRA ticket, if you don't mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:16, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Yes, this solution allows to cover both cases:
> > > > > >> a) not stopped node from previous test and
> > > > > >> b) allows to remove useless code that stops Ignite nodes
from
> each
> > > > test.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:13, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > avinogradov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Maxim,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > We discussed with Dima privately, and decided
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 1) We have to assert that there is no alive nodes at
> > > > > GridAbstractTest's
> > > > > >> > beforeTestsStarted
> > > > > >> > 2) We have to kill all alive nodes (without force)
at
> > > > > GridAbstractTest's
> > > > > >> > afterTestsStopped
> > > > > >> > 3) In case of any exceptions at #2 we have to see test
error
> > > > > >> > 4) We can get rid of all useless stopAllGrids at
> > > GridAbstractTest's
> > > > > >> > subclasses.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest
's
> > > > > >> > > afterTestsStopped
> > > > > >> > > method body.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Can't agree with it becase implicit silent shutdown
of nodes
> > > from
> > > > > test
> > > > > >> > > framework may cause a lot of bugs introduced to
Ignite.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I think stop+test fail should occur.
> > > > > >> > > In that case author of incorrect test or not consistent
> Ignite
> > > > > >> shutdown
> > > > > >> > > will see problem.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > 'Fail fast' if always better than hidding real
problem under
> > > > > automatic
> > > > > >> > > framework feature.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 14:05, Anton Vinogradov
<
> > > > > >> avinogradov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >> > >:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I've made some research about this problem
and i think
> > that
> > > in
> > > > > >> > general
> > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in GridAbstractTest
> class
> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes.
Am I right?
> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest
's
> > > > > >> > > > afterTestsStopped method
> > > > > >> > > > body.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean
cancel)
> this
> > > > > "cancel"
> > > > > >> > > > That's just a flag means "do not wait for
any operations
> > > finish"
> > > > > >> > > > See no reason to set it true in that case.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped
this will
> > > affect
> > > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > > last test (method).
> > > > > >> > > > The idea is to stop all nodes at last test's
method
> finish.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >  Nodes that survive between tests can
affect successive
> > > > > >> > > > tests.
> > > > > >> > > > Thats ok. we have a lot tests where nodes
reusable between
> > > > test's
> > > > > >> > > methods.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
<
> > > > > >> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > IMO nodes that survive between tests
is not general
> > practice
> > > > and
> > > > > >> I'm
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > sure is a best practice. I suggest to
mark such tests
> with
> > > > some
> > > > > >> > method
> > > > > >> > > > > overriden from AbstractTest.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > About cancel flag, please note stopAllGrids(boolean
> > cancel)
> > > > > >> > > cancel=false
> > > > > >> > > > > allows to wait of checkpoint ends in
case persistence
> > > enabled.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I still suggest to avoid stopping any
nodes by test, but
> > > > > validate
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > stopped node exist and fail test instead
of siltent
> > implicit
> > > > > >> actions.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 13:04,
Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your first question,
the use of
> > > afterTestsStopped
> > > > is
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > enough
> > > > > >> > > > > > to stop all nodes, since each individual
test (method)
> > can
> > > > > start
> > > > > >> > > custom
> > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > >> > > > > > of notes during its operation,
and this very test
> should
> > > > stop
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > > nodes. If you delegate closing
to afterTestsStopped
> this
> > > > will
> > > > > >> > affect
> > > > > >> > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > > > last test (method). Nodes that
survive between tests
> can
> > > > > affect
> > > > > >> > > > > successive
> > > > > >> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-07 1:10 GMT+03:00 Maxim
Muzafarov <
> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > I've made some research about
this problem and i
> think
> > > > that
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > general
> > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > > should move stopAllGrids method
in GridAbstractTest
> > > class
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > afterTestsStopped method with
some changes. Am I
> > right?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Also, I have a question about
stopAllGrids(boolean
> > > cancel)
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > "cancel"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > argument. Why in some cases
we should interrupt
> > > ComputeJob
> > > > > >> and in
> > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > cases shouldn't? For example
here:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> IgniteBaselineAffinityTopologyActivationTest#afterTest
> > > > > >> > > > > > > we call method stopAllGrids(false)
this way. Why not
> > > > "true"
> > > > > >> > > argument
> > > > > >> > > > > > > instead?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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