[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17846101#comment-17846101
 ] 

Michael Semb Wever commented on CASSANDRA-18106:
------------------------------------------------

We weren't running dtest-upgrade-large tests at all, so there was no need for 
jdk switching.  (We'd forgotten about the --intensive flag on upgrade tests.)

The tests in question are doing multi-step upgrades. (We don't recommend 
upgrading and switching jdk at the same time, here the absolutely correct thing 
for the tests to be doing is upgrading and then restarting to switch jdk, but 
that's kinda overkill.)

Are these tests really testing something that is persisted (serialised), i.e. 
something that happens in 3.0 that persists and isn't a problem until two major 
version later in 5.0 ?  That sounds more like serialisation tests (that don't 
even need to be upgrade tests).

ccm still supports jdk switching with JAVAx_HOME env vars, so if we need to we 
can still introduce these vars carefully for just these particular tests found 
in dtest-upgrade-large.

> Update CCM for JDK17 and revise current JDK detection strategy
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-18106
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18106
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: CI
>            Reporter: Ekaterina Dimitrova
>            Assignee: Brandon Williams
>            Priority: Normal
>             Fix For: 5.0-alpha1, 5.0
>
>         Attachments: Screenshot 2023-03-03 at 09.24.50.png
>
>
> As part of CASSANDRA-16895 initial POC an initial version of CCM patch was 
> created. This needs to be revisited and reviewed
> Recently we closed CASSANDRA-18039 which brought questions, probably we need 
> to revise how we detect JDK versions in CCM and whether it is correct. To the 
> best of my knowledge there are certain tests in the repo around that and they 
> pass so my guess is we need to revise just the strategy and maybe document it 
> explicitly or consider if we want any changes to be applied. Also, we need to 
> be careful with breaking changes. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to