ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:55:30 GMT
Anton.

I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.

1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.

So, this fix make things better.

I think we shouldn't revert it.

I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.

Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?

On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>
> Dmitriy,
> Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> unacceptable code merge situation.
> Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
> and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
merged.
> The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
>
> Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
objections.
> But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
>
> Dmitrii,
>>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> reasons for
>>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
> the code will be rolled back.
> Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
for
>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>>
>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>>
>>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
>> always
>>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>>>
>>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
>>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
>>> test,
>>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
is
>>> checked?
>>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>>>
>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
>> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>>>
>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> Dmitrii,
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
>>> no-op
>>>> to have a proper handler?
>>>>
>>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
>>> step.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
>>>>> looks good to me so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
>>>> like
>>>>> we
>>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
>> ticket
>>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> vololo100@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
>>> tests
>>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
>>> from
>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
>> the
>>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
>>> absolutely
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
>> a
>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a>
>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
>>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
>> all
>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
>>> not
>>>>> got a
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
>>> require
>>>>> noop
>>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
>> are
>>>>> covered
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
>> away
>>> I
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
>>> be
>>>>>>> costly.
>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
>>> happen
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sure:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
>>> and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> do it
>>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
>>>>> details
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>>> something
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>>>>> implementation as
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> Apache
>>>>> Way, -
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
>> we
>>>>> stop
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>>>>> anti-patterns in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
>>> (only)
>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
>>> no-op
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
>>> are
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> have with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>>>> disagreements
>>>>>>>> here? Why
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>>>>> reverting
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>> R.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>>> mutes
>>>>>>>> problem, as
>>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
>>>> Bot.
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
>> I
>>>>> guess,
>>>>>>> no,
>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>>>> better
>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
>>>> this
>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
>>> More
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
>> I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> care too
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> provide
>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
>>>> should
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> enabled
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
>>> of
>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>>> have
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>>>>> contributors? I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>>>>> principle'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
>>> of
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
>>>> class
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> found
>>>>> with IDE
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> grep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> much to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>>> someone
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>> and say
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> nowhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
>>>>> better he
>>>>>>>> or she
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> do can
>>>>>>>>>>> make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>>>>> do-ocracy
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> problem
>>>>> (we had
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> found
>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>>> stop-node
>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> care.
>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>>> 100/6
>>>> =
>>>>> 18
>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> better
>>>> if
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
>>>>> enforces
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>> code but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>>> when
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> caused
>>> by
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>>> more
>>>>>>> robust
>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>>> revealed
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> anti
>>>>> pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> fix
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> further
>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>>>> Maxim
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> made and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>>>>>>>> "improvements".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>>>> keeping
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> case
>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>>> Vinogradov
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>>> to
>>>>>>>> continue :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>>> over-copy-pasted
>>>>>>> commits
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>>>>> Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>>>> before
>>>>>>>> massive
>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> using any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> TC
>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>>> attached.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>>>> this
>>>>> (get
>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>>> option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> will
>>>>> you try
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> research a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> to
>>> do
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>>>>> noop. It
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>>> contributed
>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>>>>> Vinogradov
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>>>> problem in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>>> me
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
>> handlers
>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>> ok!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
>> this
>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>> I ask
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>> activate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
>> approach
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
>>>> fix,
>>>>>>>> reopen the
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
>>> why
>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
>>> before
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fix was
>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
>> rollback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>> problem
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
>> PM
>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>> Иван
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
>> And I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>> respell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
>>> "use
>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
>>>> these
>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
>>> to
>>>>> revert
>>>>>>>>>> other's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
>> A
>>>> lot
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
>> everything
>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
>>> better,
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
>> contribute
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
>> revert
>>>> by
>>>>>>> veto,
>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>> please feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 14:53,
>>>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>>>> Иван <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
>>> summarize
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
>>> added a
>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>> thing --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
>>>>> think it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
>>> overweight
>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>> result? And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>>> 14:03,
>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
>>> idea
>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>> me to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
>> not
>>> an
>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
>> community
>>>>> member,
>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
>> able
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
>>> to
>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>> fix of
>>>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
>> fix".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
>> to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
>> at
>>>>> 1:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
>> provide
>>>> PR
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> demo
>>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
>> revert a
>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
>>>> discuss
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
>> test
>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
>> as
>>>> the
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> - ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
>> в
>>>>> 13:35,
>>>>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
>>>> these
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
>> you
>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
>>> this
>>>>> way
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
>> unacceptable
>>>> to
>>>>> hide
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
>> as
>>> a
>>>>>>>> reviewer, to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
>> at
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> test we
>>>>>>>>>>> solved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
>> 2018
>>>> at
>>>>> 1:10
>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
>> any
>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>> no-op
>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>>>> default long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
>>>>> authors of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

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