zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: RC1 issues (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.2-alpha candidate 1)
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:53:11 GMT
For my part, I got a successful full test run from RC1 before starting the
[VOTE].  The problem with the silent failure of multi tests could have
snuck past me easily though.  (Flavio, thank you for filing
ZOOKEEPER-2463.)  I'm curious to hear test results from others who are
trying RC1.

It looks like we also need an issue to track updating the copyright notice
in the docs.  I don't believe this is an ASF compliance problem in the
same way that an erroneous NOTICE file would be, so I propose that we
address it in 3.5.3.

Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc
failure.  Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3?

Overall, how are people feeling about the RC1 [VOTE] at this point?  Is
anyone considering a -1, or shall we proceed (keeping in mind it's an
alpha) with the intent of fixing things in a more rapid 3.5.3 release

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/3/16, 8:43 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <fpj@apache.org> wrote:

>The issue with the TestReconfigServer test is that the client port is
>still used and we get a bind exception, which prevents the server from
>starting. To verify this locally, I simply added some code to retry and
>it works fine with that fix. Going forward we need a better fox.
>I haven't able to figure out yet the issue with the
>Zookeeper_simpleSystem tests.
>I have also found something strange with the multi tests. I have created
>ZK-2463 for this problem and made it a blocker for 3.5.3.
>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:25, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>> I have spun a new ubuntu VM to check the C failures. I get three
>>failures with the new installation:
>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testFirstServerDown : assertion : elapsed 10911
>> tests/TestClient.cc:411: Assertion: equality assertion failed
>>[Expected: -101, Actual  : -4]
>> tests/TestClient.cc:322: Assertion: assertion failed [Expression:
>> Failures !!!
>> Run: 43   Failure total: 2   Failures: 2   Errors: 0
>> TestReconfigServer::testRemoveFollower/usr/bin/java
>> ZooKeeper JMX enabled by default
>> Using config: ./../../build/test/test-cppunit/conf/0.conf
>> Starting zookeeper ... FAILED TO START
>> zktest-mt: tests/ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc:61: void
>>ZooKeeperQuorumServer::start(): Assertion `system(command.c_str()) == 0'
>> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted                 (core dumped)
>> -Flavio
>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>>> Hi Flavio,
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org
>>><mailto:fpj@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> Hey Eddie,
>>> A few comments on your points:
>>>> - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth
>>>>updating to
>>>> the current year?
>>> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I can
>>> ​Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/
>>>folder. Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013"
>>>copyright. Images attached.
>>>> - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console
>>> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even
>>>though it isn't ideal. it is expected.
>>> ​Got it. :)
>>> ​ 
>>>> - Also this one:
>>> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better create
>>>one and make it a blocker.
>>> ​Okay, gonna look for and do this.
>>>> - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of them
>>>> to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests?
>>> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I
>>>didn't get these test failures, so it would be great to report them or
>>>make sure that there are jiras for it.
>>> ​Right. I was only skep​tical of my own tests because I ran the unit
>>>tests on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java 1.7.
>>>So, I am running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make sure it
>>>was not a false negative.
>>> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad with
>>>the RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It might
>>>be ok given that this is still labeled alpha.
>>> ​Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are restricted
>>>to the C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have
>>>researched further before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :)
>>> Edward

View raw message