Hi, Thanks Juhani, I agree, this shouldn't hold up the release and FWIW, I don't have an alternative way to test this at present...
Brock On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Juhani Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brock. > > I didn't have any problems with that test, but it's setup to be very > tight(1ms) to encounter a possible bug that I initially encountered. It took > me 20 runs now to get the issue to recreate. It's somewhat sensitive to > HDFS, looking at the output logs from the time it did fail however, it looks > like HDFS was just lagging behind a bit. It definitely isn't a problem that > should hold back the release, but it looks like it's going to be awkward to > get a test that properly tests the sink without a lot of sleeps and longer > idle timeouts... And running unit tests take long enough as is. Still, if I > can't come up with another alternative I'll make a patch along those lines. > > > On 11/20/2012 05:52 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >> >> OK, good to hear. I don't feel this racy test requires another RC, >> e.g. the flume-1.2.0 file channel tests are quite racy, but if we have >> another RC, I'll make sure we get that 1730 is included. >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Roshan Naik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> passed on second attempt. definitely a fuzzy test. >>> -roshan >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Roshan Naik >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Just once. Following steps.. >>>> >>>> - git pull --rebase >>>> - mvn clean package >>>> >>>> Running it again right now. will keep you posted. >>>> >>>> -roshan >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
