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 Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:38:47 GMT
I filed ZOOKEEPER-2465 to track updating the copyright notice on all
documentation pages.  Edward, thank you for reporting the problem.

--Chris Nauroth




On 7/3/16, 12:02 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <fpj@apache.org> wrote:

>
>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 17:53, Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
>The test failures seem to be related to test timing, not bugs, but I
>haven't been able to confirm for the last two I mentioned. Granted that
>timing is in some sense a bug, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to
>indicate a regression or anything.
>
>> 
>> 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.
>
>Agreed, we need an issue for that.
>
>> 
>> Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc
>> failure.  Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3?
>> 
>
>I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with
>3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release.
>
>> 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
>> cycle?
>
>I'd say we proceed.
>
>-Flavio
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> -Flavio
>>> 
>>>> 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:
>>>> ctx.waitForConnected(zk)]
>>>> 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'
>>>> failed.
>>>> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted                 (core dumped)
>>>> ZKROOT=./../.. CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar
>>>> ${dir}$tst
>>>> 
>>>> -Flavio
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> see.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ​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
>>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>
>>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console
>>>>>> <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:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%
>>>>>>3C
>>>>>> 1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E
>>>>>> 
>>>>>><https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/
>>>>>>%3
>>>>>> C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E>
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> related
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>
>

Mime
View raw message