[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1598?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15037716#comment-15037716
]
Pallavi Rao commented on FALCON-1598:
-------------------------------------
If there is an exception while obtaining locks, the exception will be caught
anyway, because it is an nested try-catch. The parent try-catch will take care
of it and one thread should see an exception.
{code}
try {
...
try {
Entity entityObj = EntityUtil.getEntity(type, entity);
...
obtainEntityLocks(entityObj, "delete", tokenList);
...
} catch (EntityNotRegisteredException e) { // already deleted
return new APIResult(APIResult.Status.SUCCEEDED,
entity + "(" + type + ") doesn't exist. Nothing to do");
}
return new APIResult(APIResult.Status.SUCCEEDED,
entity + "(" + type + ") removed successfully " +
removedFromEngine);
} catch (Throwable e) {
....
throw FalconWebException.newException(e,
Response.Status.BAD_REQUEST);
} finally {
releaseEntityLocks(entity, tokenList);
}
{code}
The test is failing because of thread timing. Sometimes, by the time the second
thread tries to obtain a lock, the first thread would finish its work and
release the lock, resulting in a "SUCCESS" for both the cases.
If the suggestion is to change the current behavior to make concurrent requests
behave similar to subsequent requests, in an idempotent manner, then, we can
consider it (may be in another JIRA), and make code changes to ensure all APIs
behave consistently.
But, if the suggestion is to change the test to expect "SUCCESS" for both
threads. Then, it wouldn't be testing the "expected" behavior. right?
So, may be we should just let this patch fix the test and have another JIRA to
make concurrent requests idempotent? If we can achieve idempotency without
complexity in code, sounds good to me.
> Flaky test : EntityManagerJerseyIT.testDuplicateDeleteCommands
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FALCON-1598
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1598
> Project: Falcon
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: tests
> Affects Versions: 0.8
> Reporter: Balu Vellanki
> Assignee: Narayan Periwal
> Fix For: trunk
>
> Attachments: FALCON-1598.patch
>
>
> testDuplicateDeleteCommands fails occasionally with following error
> {code}
> Tests run: 28, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 51.226 sec
> <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.falcon.resource.EntityManagerJerseyIT
> testDuplicateDeleteCommands(org.apache.falcon.resource.EntityManagerJerseyIT)
> Time elapsed: 0.643 sec <<< FAILURE!
> java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<400> but was:<200>
> at org.testng.Assert.fail(Assert.java:89)
> at org.testng.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:489)
> at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:118)
> at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:365)
> at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:375)
> at org.apache.falcon.resource.TestContext.assertFailure(TestContext.java:439)
> at
> org.apache.falcon.resource.EntityManagerJerseyIT.testDuplicateCommandsResponse(EntityManagerJerseyIT.java:629)
> at
> org.apache.falcon.resource.EntityManagerJerseyIT.testDuplicateDeleteCommands(EntityManagerJerseyIT.java:622)
> {code}
> Looking at the code, I found that the test expects one of the two delete
> commands to fail when attempting to delete same cluster. I think the premise
> of the test is incorrect. If one of the two commands are expected to fail,
> isnt that breaking Falcon's idempotent behavior?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
