I got the following in branch-1.3 as well:

testCallQueueTooBigException(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFastFail)
 Time elapsed: 2.402 sec  <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError: There should have been 1 hit expected:<1> but
was:<0>
at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:834)
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:645)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFastFail.testCallQueueTooBigException(TestFastFail.java:340)

FYI

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I suspected this failure was caused by me reverting the split/merge
> switch-related locks, but couldn't reproduce it locally. Let me look again
> too.
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From the list, some tests, such as the following (reproduced locally),
> > failed 100%.
> >
> > testCallQueueTooBigException(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFastFail)
> >  Time elapsed: 1.54 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> > java.lang.AssertionError: There should have been 1 hit expected:<1> but
> > was:<0>
> > at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
> > at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:834)
> > at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:645)
> > at
> >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFastFail.testCallQueueTooBigException(TestFastFail.java:327)
> >
> >
> > Results :
> >
> > Failed tests:
> >   TestFastFail.testCallQueueTooBigException:327 There should have been 1
> > hit expected:<1> but was:<0>
> >
> > Let me try to find out which commit caused the failure.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Apekshit Sharma <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > > I am seeing a sudden surge in number of flaky tests.
> > > http://hbase.x10host.com/flaky-tests/
> > > I'd request everyone to have a look at the list and see if any test
> > failure
> > > correlates with recent changes you made.
> > > To go to failing runs, click on show/hide next to that test.
> > >
> > > -- Appy
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

Reply via email to