Alright, I have a fix, but it wants to be applied to both master and 3.0. Where should I push the fix?
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Scott, > If you just checkout the CURATOR-3.0 branch, they are failing there. > cheers > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sure, what SHA are they failing at Cam? > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Scott can you take a look? > > > > > > -Jordan > > > > > > > On May 25, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Cameron McKenzie < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Tree cache tests are still failing. I've tried a few times but no > love: > > > > > > > > TestTreeCacheEventOrdering>TestEventOrdering.testEventOrdering:151 > > > actual 6 > > > > expected -31: > > > > > > > > I will have a look into what's going on in the morning. Given that > > these > > > > may take some messing about to fix up, do we just want to vote on > > 2.11.0 > > > > separately, as that is all ready to go? > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Great news. Thanks. > > > >> > > > >> ==================== > > > >> Jordan Zimmerman > > > >> > > > >>> On May 25, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I have fixed up the test case, all good now. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Looks like it was introduced with the schema validation stuff. It > > now > > > >> does > > > >>>> an ACL check prior to the backgrounding call. Because the unit > test > > > >> uses a > > > >>>> bogus ACL provider it just throws an exception > > > >>>> > > > >>>> final String adjustedPath = > > > >>>> adjustPath(client.fixForNamespace(givenPath, > > > >> createMode.isSequential())); > > > >>>> List<ACL> aclList = acling.getAclList(adjustedPath); > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > client.getSchemaSet().getSchema(givenPath).validateCreate(createMode, > > > >> data, > > > >>>> aclList); > > > >>>> > > > >>>> String returnPath = null; > > > >>>> if ( backgrounding.inBackground() ) > > > >>>> { > > > >>>> pathInBackground(adjustedPath, data, givenPath); > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, I guess the answer is to get the test to force a failure in a > > > >>>> different way. With the UnhandledErrorListener, the expectation is > > > that > > > >>>> this only gets called on backgrounding operations? > > > >>>> cheers > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Same on the master branch, but it passes there, so maybe > something > > > has > > > >>>>> legitimately broken the test. Will let you know if I get stuck. > > > >>>>> cheers > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Let me know if you need help. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> It might be a bad merge. Have you compared it to the master > > branch? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> -JZ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:31 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Guys, > > > >>>>>>> There's a test TestFrameworkBackground:testErrorListener that > is > > > >>>>>> failing > > > >>>>>>> consistently on the CURATOR-3.0 branch. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I can't see how it has ever worked. It seems to try and provoke > > an > > > >>>>>> error > > > >>>>>>> via a bad ACL provider. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> But this ACL provider is called by the CreateBuilderImpl prior > to > > > the > > > >>>>>>> backgrounding call, which means that the exception that it > throws > > > >>>>>> happens > > > >>>>>>> in the main Thread of the unit test. So, it just throws an > > > >>>>>>> UnsupportedOperationException which is propogated up the stack > at > > > >> which > > > >>>>>>> point the unit test fails. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So, I will look at fixing this, but I just don't understand how > > it > > > >> ever > > > >>>>>>> worked? > > > >>>>>>> cheers > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
