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 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 13:41:11 GMT
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 commit.
New commit
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
idea how to
> > transfer
> > > > and
> > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because
the fail
> > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a
throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
*worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have
to check this
> > > expectation
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
changes and
> replace
> > > > them
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler
as a default one looks
> > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback
to noop for 100+
> > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become
failed after changing
> > > > default
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may
be umbrella) to
> > > > investigate
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR
and some of them are
> > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
expects if any
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
handler to
> detect
> > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is
needed (to keep hanged
> > grid
> > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM
Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem",
so, we lose the
> > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
examples where "no-op"
> > > better
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37
AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping
every disconnecting node
> > with
> > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op
handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind
you that Dmitry changed
> > default
> > > > of
> > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
handler. So we should start
> every
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining
tests and remove noop
> > where
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why
noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
failure handler should be
> > > triggered,
> > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise
some flag, which can be checked
> in
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will
make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop,
you'll get previous unwanted
> > > behavior,
> > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек.
2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have
to check the reason of failure
> > > inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found
not equals to expected then
> test
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution
is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case
you expect the failure then a
> correct
> > > > case
> > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
block instead of no-op failure
> > > handler
> > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт,
4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests
in these classes check fail cases
> when
> > > we
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure
like node stop or exception
> thrown.
> > > Such
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler
and it fails test when everything
> > goes
> > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why
we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт,
4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> > > > does't
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> Could you please explain the reason of
> > > > explicit
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > Today the test framework's default
> > no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed
to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > handler, which stops the node and
> > fails
> > > > the
> > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> > > handler
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > If you'll found a problem or
> something
> > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in
the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > [1]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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