ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:01:20 GMT
>> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then
on
>> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
>> constructive manner.
Agree

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:

> 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