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 12:59:35 GMT
>> 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