Stephen Mallette created CASSANDRA-15718: --------------------------------------------
Summary: Improve BatchMetricsTest Key: CASSANDRA-15718 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15718 Project: Cassandra Issue Type: Improvement Components: Test/unit Reporter: Stephen Mallette Assignee: Stephen Mallette As noted in CASSANDRA-15582 {{BatchMetricsTest}} should test {{BatchStatement.Type.COUNTER}} to cover all the {{BatchMetrics}}. Some changes were introduced to make this improvement at: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...spmallette:CASSANDRA-15582-trunk-batchmetrics and the following suggestions were made in review (in addition to the suggestion that a separate JIRA be created for this change) by [~dcapwell]: {quote} * I like the usage of BatchStatement.Type for the tests * honestly feel quick theories is better than random, but glad you added the seed to all asserts =). Would still be better as a quick theories test since you basically wrote a property anyways! * https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...spmallette:CASSANDRA-15582-trunk-batchmetrics#diff-8948cec1f9d33f10b15c38de80141548R131 feel you should rename to expectedPartitionsPerLoggedBatch {Count,Logged,Unlogged} * . pre is what the value is, post is what the value is expected to be (rather than what it is). * * https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...spmallette:CASSANDRA-15582-trunk-batchmetrics#diff-8948cec1f9d33f10b15c38de80141548R150 this doesn't look correct. the batch has distinctPartitions mutations, so shouldn't max reflect that? I ran the current test in a debugger and see that that is the case (aka current test is wrong). most of the comments are nit picks, but the last one looks like a test bug to me {quote} -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org