I'm watching the discussion. Could you please tell me anything to be 
required/done from my side. Thanks! 

Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 20 March 2015 04:24
To: Flavio Junqueira
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?

Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that 
might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs 
> of CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
>         if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>             hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>             LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>         }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and 
> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname 
> are different.
>
> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which 
> would make the tests more deterministic.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira < 
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname 
>> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are 
>> failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>>      On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R 
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing 
>> one test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address 
>> those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < 
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
>> 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to