https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-302
I need to trace through what's really going on under the hood rather than band-aid the test. Should be able to in next couple of days. On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] > wrote: > Any update on this? I think you should create a Jira for it. > > -Jordan > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > BTW, this test passes on master... so it's some kind of 3.0 vs. master > issue. I think I'm going to just have to dump in a ton of log messages and > see what differs. > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> OK - please create a new Issue in Jira for this. >> >> -Jordan >> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> BTW: this is broken on CURATOR-3.0 as well, so it appears to have been >> broken for a while. Maybe I'll have to git bisect... >> >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Okay, so I looked into this for a bit, and I hit kind of a wall. I >>> think there is a legit bug/race in TreeCache, and the following patch >>> *should* remedy: >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/curator-recipes/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/recipes/cache/TreeCache.java >>> b/curator-recipes/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/recipes/cache/TreeCache.java >>> index df4403c..a4a022b 100644 >>> --- >>> a/curator-recipes/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/recipes/cache/TreeCache.java >>> +++ >>> b/curator-recipes/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/recipes/cache/TreeCache.java >>> @@ -303,7 +303,6 @@ public class TreeCache implements Closeable >>> void wasDeleted() throws Exception >>> { >>> ChildData oldChildData = childData.getAndSet(null); >>> - >>> >>> client.watches().remove(this).ofType(WatcherType.Any).locally().inBackground().forPath(path); >>> ConcurrentMap<String, TreeNode> childMap = >>> children.getAndSet(null); >>> if ( childMap != null ) >>> { >>> @@ -807,8 +806,16 @@ public class TreeCache implements Closeable >>> case RECONNECTED: >>> try >>> { >>> + outstandingOps.incrementAndGet(); >>> root.wasReconnected(); >>> >>> publishEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.CONNECTION_RECONNECTED); >>> + if ( outstandingOps.decrementAndGet() == 0 ) >>> + { >>> + if ( isInitialized.compareAndSet(false, true) ) >>> + { >>> + publishEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>> + } >>> + } >>> } >>> catch ( Exception e ) >>> { >>> >>> That should guarantee that the initialized event gets deferred until all >>> outstanding refreshes finish.. but it's not. Something seems to have >>> changed under the hood in how background events are getting sent to >>> TreeCache, and I don't really understand it yet. And running the debugger >>> seems to affect the timing, like something racy is going on. :( >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, that is kind of weird. I'll take a look. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, sorry. The last few lines of the test currently are: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.NODE_REMOVED, "/test/me", >>>>> "data".getBytes()); >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>>>> >>>>> This fails. But, if I switch them it works: >>>>> >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>>>> >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.NODE_REMOVED, "/test/me", >>>>> "data".getBytes()); >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 2:57 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So you end up with 2 initialized events? >>>>> >>>>> You mean this? >>>>> >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.CONNECTION_RECONNECTED); >>>>> + assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.NODE_REMOVED, "/test/me", >>>>> "data".getBytes()); >>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>>>> >>>>> Seems weird if there are two, but I can help look. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> In this branch, TestTreeCache.testKilledSession() is failing at: >>>>>> >>>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.NODE_REMOVED, "/test/me", >>>>>> "data".getBytes()); >>>>>> >>>>>> However, if I change the two asserts to: >>>>>> >>>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.INITIALIZED); >>>>>> assertEvent(TreeCacheEvent.Type.NODE_REMOVED, "/test/me", >>>>>> "data".getBytes()); >>>>>> >>>>>> it works. Does that make any sense? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jordan >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:23 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Devs, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > In trying to fix the bad log message "Failed to find watcher” >>>>>> (which turns out to be a ZK client issue), I realize that the >>>>>> NamespaceWatcher and WatcherWrapper stuff could be improved. I’m still >>>>>> working on getting all tests to pass but I’d appreciate more sets of eyes >>>>>> on this change. Please review carefully if you can. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/131 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -Jordan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
