Alright, I've git bisected it down to a single change that breaks
TestTreeCache:
WatcherRemovalManager.internalRemove,
private synchronized void internalRemove(WrappedWatcher entry)
{
namespaceWatcherMap.removeWatcher(entry.watcher);
entries.remove(entry);
}
The offending line seems to be the namespaceWatcherMap.removeWatcher. If I
comment out that line, TestTreeCache passes.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there may be some general problem, I notice warning messages in
> the test logs, like:
>
> ERROR org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn Failed to find watcher!
> [main-SendThread(127.0.0.1:60086)]
> org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$NoWatcherException: KeeperErrorCode =
> No such watcher for /test/one
> at
> org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper$ZKWatchManager.containsWatcher(ZooKeeper.java:377)
> at
> org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper$ZKWatchManager.removeWatcher(ZooKeeper.java:252)
> at
> org.apache.zookeeper.WatchDeregistration.unregister(WatchDeregistration.java:58)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's not a problem with the changes I'm trying to merge in;
>> TestTreeCache is currently broken on 3.0 branch already.
>>
>> Looks like it broke on revision c6a22ba508f9227fe1c657f93e3cc77d8bc17e3e,
>> which was a merge from master into 3.0, with some conflict resolution.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I can try to merge when I get a chance. At some point, we should move
>>> CURATOR-3.0 to master so we don’t have to keep maintaining this.
>>>
>>> -JZ
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> TestTreeCache fails on 6acf0987125469ecb79ff48ce5e9735a98cd1abb
>>> <http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator/commit/6acf0987>, a
>>> proposed merge of master into 3.0.
>>>
>>> It has something to do with the new watcher stuff, but I haven't been
>>> able to figure out what the problem is, possible because I don't understand
>>> the new stuff well enough. Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
