Hi Sijie, BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ? Best Regards, Rakesh -----Original Message----- From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34 To: Rakesh R Cc: [email protected]; Sijie Guo Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently. -Flavio > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Flavio, > > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout". > That is too small value. > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case > again. > > Regards, > Rakesh > -----Original Message----- > From: Rakesh R > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Sijie Guo > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1? > > Hi Flavio, > >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds > > I could see the following call can take some amount of time > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh); > > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do > you have the logs available with you. > > Regards, > Rakesh > -----Original Message----- > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51 > To: Sijie Guo > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? > > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry > to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around: > > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 > milliseconds > >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>] >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
