impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: A couple of questions
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:45:58 GMT
1. I think you're right that many of the shell tests don't inherently
require to be executed serially. Some of them would require work to execute
in parallel, particularly the ones that inspect files like .impalahistory
and tests that check the values of global impala daemon metrics.

2. Yes, Java should use lowerCamelCase. C++ uses UpperCamelCase. This does
seem inconsistent but is inherited from the Google styles.

I agree that some functions in Java are not following the convention, e.g.
AnalyzesOk(). I don't know why they are different. It would be nice to fix
them to be consistent but I'd be concerned about the merge conflicts
resulting.

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Jin Chul Kim <jinchul@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Would you please answer the questions? Thanks.
>
> 1. Regarding the decorator "pytest.mark.execute_serially", I saw all the
> test cases are marked as execute_serially in
> tests/shell/test_shell_interactive.py. I guess a few tests should be run
> exclusively, but the other tests do not require the serial option. What do
> you think about this? I think we should consider to use the decorator when
> adding test cases. Minimized serial run can help to reduce overall test
> running time by parallelism.
>
> I think the following cases do not require the decorator.
> a. Check consistency from test result
> b. Test query cancellation
> c. Test shell options which are effective on local shell
>
> 2. Regarding coding convention, especially function name, in Java, I am
> confusing which function name is right: lowerCamelCase or CamelCase. I
> guess we may follow lowerCamelCase:
> https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.2.3-method-names
> By the way, some codes did not follow the convention. Please see
> fe/src/test/java/org/apache/impala/analysis/AnalyzerTest.java#L113,126. I
> could see similar case in some files. Do we have to align function name?
> What do you think about this?
>
> Best regards,
> Jinchul
>

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