I need to analyze this a bit deeper, but what I'm seeing on the 3.0 branch is that the ephemeral node /test/me created in testKilledSession() really isn't disappearing when it should.
After the session loss and the reconnect, /test still shows 2 children [foo, me] and /test/me still returns a node. Any idea why the timing here would have changed? On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
