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 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:22:47 GMT
Dmitriy,

You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
Why it still not reverted?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org>:
> >
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > thank you for noticing.
> >
> > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> >
> >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> >
> > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
> >
> > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> > correctly failing test.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> >
> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <ilantukh@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
> into
> > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> > >
> > > [2018-12-07
> > >
> > >
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> configured
> > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
> find
> > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> > >     at
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> 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
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>

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