ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:39:50 GMT
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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
>

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