ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Date Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:29:32 GMT
Vladimir, I agree more with Andrey's fix in the parity test, because it
disables only specific property failure.

If we keep .NET parity test failed for a long time, some other
contributor will introduce new property- it will begin to fail always - it
is like a snowball.

I hope the metrics test will also be fixed before 2.7

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 14:43, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com>:

> Hi guys!
>
> By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without
> making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit will
> lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question.
>
> 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Dmitriy S.,
> >
> > I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I
> > were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit NNNN because of
> > test failures TTTT, commit reverted, ticket IGNITE-KKKK reopened."
> >
> > But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix missed
> > test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these
> test
> > to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> >
> > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs.
> > >
> > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Fix is trivial and ready.
> > > > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits.
> Reverting a
> > > > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may
> be
> > > > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that
> > > > breaks
> > > > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We
> > > should
> > > > > all do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very
> > human
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > to do mistakes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of
robot
> > to
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without
> > its
> > > > own
> > > > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time
> to
> > > make
> > > > > > contribution perfect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe
> > > > different
> > > > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing
> tests,
> > > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that
guys
> > > > because
> > > > > > of you have other priorities?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration
in
> > > Java,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better
> > suggest
> > > > you
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead
of
> > > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320
is named
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > finalization.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests
> passing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization
> > with
> > > > > > passing
> > > > > > > > tests and merge changes?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov
<
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Test is going to be fixed in the scope of AI
2.7 [1]. This
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > one-minute fix as there are multiple places where
> > configuration
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > passed, and changes should be covered with tests.
I muted
> the
> > > > test
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
> > > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's not revert any commits yet. Can we
find out who did
> > the
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > why he/she is not fixing the test?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:21 PM Vyacheslav
Daradur <
> > > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 'IgniteConfigurationParityTest#TestIgniteConfiguration'?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Seems it's not hard to fix this test,
it's necessary
> just
> > > to
> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > missing members (at least as stubs)
on .NET side in
> > > > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration class.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is there a Jira issue?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM Dmitriy
Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm grateful for contributions
made in that area, but
> > it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > have time to fix the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it is the only way we
can keep master more
> or
> > > less
> > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723&
> > tab=buildChangesDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

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