Are we using a new zookeeper? Or did something change with our implementation of KillSession.kill()?
Or maybe there's a timing issue with Curator's ConnectionStateManager State change: LOST? I don't understand how we could get a LOST event without the ephemeral node attached to that session having disappeared? On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < [email protected]> wrote: > I don’t know if anything changed in ZooKeeper itself. I know that the > connection states changed in Curator, but Curator now tests both the old > mode and the new mode and they both fail here. > > -JZ > > On Feb 7, 2016, at 1:06 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
