[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14008842#comment-14008842
]
Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-7279:
-------------------------------------
I'd be comfortable with just asserting (always, regardless of if assertions are
enabled) on the thrift path to keep the patch simple. Multi slices are a new
thing to thrift world, so constraining them sensibly (to inputs we don't have
to massage to make sense) seems reasonable to me. The only possible point of
contention would be two ranges with equal end/starts, which we would reject but
which are easy to understand what should be meant. I don't think they're a
severe casualty though.
It'd be nice to take the opportunity to simultaneously clean up the ABSC code
to no longer enforce this assumption while we're imposing it elsewhere.
Also, there's at least one spot where the constructor can be called that isn't
covered by [~slebresne]'s patch, so I'd suggest either moving the assert into
the constructor, or creating a static method for construction that requires
stipulating if the assert is always enforced (thrift), or only if assertions
are enabled. I'm a little concerned that we can easily introduce new code paths
that use them incorrectly but that won't be covered by any assertions as it
stands.
> MultiSliceTest.test_with_overlap* unit tests failing in trunk
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7279
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7279
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Tests
> Reporter: Michael Shuler
> Assignee: T Jake Luciani
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.1 rc1, 3.0
>
> Attachments: 7279-trunk.txt, 7279-trunkv2.txt, 7279-trunkv3.txt,
> 7279-trunkv4.txt, 7279_alternative.txt
>
>
> Example:
> https://cassci.datastax.com/job/trunk_utest/623/testReport/org.apache.cassandra.thrift/MultiSliceTest/
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
