[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15718?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17092066#comment-17092066
]
Dinesh Joshi commented on CASSANDRA-15718:
------------------------------------------
[~spmallette] I have a little feedback which I have mocked up in this
[branch|https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...dineshjoshi:CASSANDRA-15582-trunk-batchmetrics?expand=1].
If it looks good, I can squash and commit it.
> 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
> Priority: Normal
> Attachments: CASSANDRA-15582-test-cleanup.patch
>
>
> 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
