Ok, thank you. Please let me know when we can proceed with review https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502
вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 20:17, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > Hello Dmitry, > > Yes, I've updated test classes as you metioned before. > Now i'm fixing review comments. Within next few days I'll prepare final > version of this PR. > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 20:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > are there any news on these test fails? > > > > Is issue ready for review? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitiry Pavlov > > > > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi, thank you! > > > > > > I've found several suspicious fails: such test fails have rate less > than > > > 1%, it is probably new failures. > > > > > > It would be great if we can fix it before merge. Could you address this > > > fails? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > IgniteCacheTestSuite5: IgniteCacheStoreCollectionTest.testStoreMap > (fail > > > rate 0,0%) > > > IgniteCacheTestSuite5: > > > CacheLateAffinityAssignmentTest.testDelayAssignmentClientJoin (fail > rate > > > 0,0%) > > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEviction (fail > > rate > > > 0,0%) > > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEvictionIndexing > > > (fail rate 0,0%) > > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEviction (fail rate > > > 0,0%) > > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEvictionIndexing > > (fail > > > rate 0,0%) > > > > > > IgniteBinarySimpleNameMapperCacheFullApiTestSuite: > > > > > > GridCachePartitionedNearDisabledMultiNodeWithGroupFullApiSelfTest.testWithSkipStoreTx > > > (fail rate 0,0%) > > > > > > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:04, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> Yep, link may not be correct. > > >> > > >> Here is correct version: > > >> TC: * > > >> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead > > >> < > > >> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead > > >> >* > > >> > > >> > > >> вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:41, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >> > Hi Maxim, > > >> > > > >> > could you please provide link to TC run on your PR? It seems link > > >> provided > > >> > points to run of master. In changes field you may select > > pull/3542/head > > >> > before starting RunAll. > > >> > > > >> > Igniters, > > >> > > > >> > this change is related to our test framework, so change may affect > > your > > >> > tests. Please join to review > > >> > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > > >> > > > >> > Sincerely, > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > >> > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:14, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > I think, I've done with this issue, what should we do next? > > >> > > > > >> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > > >> > > Upsource: > > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > > >> > > TC: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=723895&personal=false&buildTypeId=&tab=vcsModificationTests > > >> > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 14:12, Dmitry Pavlov < > dpavlov....@gmail.com > > >: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Maxim, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > To my mind stopAllGrids call should be kept in afterTestsStop(). > > If > > >> > > > developer forgot to call super(), he will see exception from > > >> > > > beforeTestsStart() > > >> > > > added by you. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If you think patch is ready to be reviewed, please change JIRA > > >> status > > >> > to > > >> > > > "Patch Available". > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Optionally you can create Upsource review. It would be easier > for > > >> > > multiple > > >> > > > reviewers to handle this patch. This test framework is used by > all > > >> > > Igniters > > >> > > > so Upsource would be good option ( > > >> https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ > > >> > ). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sincerely, > > >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > > > >> > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov < > maxmu...@gmail.com > > >: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I've made some changes based on our previous discusstions, > > please > > >> see > > >> > > PR > > >> > > > > [1]: > > >> > > > > 1) Remove duplicated code for stopGrid (by index and by name); > > >> > > > > 2) Add new method that thows exception if not all grids > haven't > > >> > stopped > > >> > > > > correctly; > > >> > > > > 3) Change tests that have been affected by this changes; > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Also, I have some thoughts for clarification: > > >> > > > > 1) beforeTestsStart() - I expect here in subtests that grids > are > > >> not > > >> > > > > started yet. Am I right? > > >> > > > > 2) I think we should call stopAllGrids in tearDown method. So, > > if > > >> in > > >> > > some > > >> > > > > cases we'll override afterTestsStop in subclasses and forgot > to > > >> call > > >> > > > > super() it won't lead us to exception. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > > >> > > > > [2] > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=717275 > > >> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 18:28, Maxim Muzafarov < > > maxmu...@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you all, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'll add this comment's for JIRA ticket, if you don't mind. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:16, Dmitry Pavlov < > > >> dpavlov....@gmail.com > > >> > >: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, this solution allows to cover both cases: > > >> > > > > >> a) not stopped node from previous test and > > >> > > > > >> b) allows to remove useless code that stops Ignite nodes > from > > >> each > > >> > > > test. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:13, Anton Vinogradov < > > >> > > > avinogra...@gridgain.com > > >> > > > > >: > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Maxim, > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > We discussed with Dima privately, and decided > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > 1) We have to assert that there is no alive nodes at > > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's > > >> > > > > >> > beforeTestsStarted > > >> > > > > >> > 2) We have to kill all alive nodes (without force) at > > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's > > >> > > > > >> > afterTestsStopped > > >> > > > > >> > 3) In case of any exceptions at #2 we have to see test > > error > > >> > > > > >> > 4) We can get rid of all useless stopAllGrids at > > >> > > GridAbstractTest's > > >> > > > > >> > subclasses. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > >> > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to > GridAbstractTest > > 's > > >> > > > > >> > > afterTestsStopped > > >> > > > > >> > > method body. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Can't agree with it becase implicit silent shutdown of > > >> nodes > > >> > > from > > >> > > > > test > > >> > > > > >> > > framework may cause a lot of bugs introduced to Ignite. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > I think stop+test fail should occur. > > >> > > > > >> > > In that case author of incorrect test or not consistent > > >> Ignite > > >> > > > > >> shutdown > > >> > > > > >> > > will see problem. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 'Fail fast' if always better than hidding real problem > > >> under > > >> > > > > automatic > > >> > > > > >> > > framework feature. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 14:05, Anton Vinogradov < > > >> > > > > >> avinogra...@gridgain.com > > >> > > > > >> > >: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I've made some research about this problem and i > > think > > >> > that > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > >> > general > > >> > > > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > >> > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in GridAbstractTest > > >> class > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am I > > right? > > >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to > GridAbstractTest > > 's > > >> > > > > >> > > > afterTestsStopped method > > >> > > > > >> > > > body. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean > cancel) > > >> this > > >> > > > > "cancel" > > >> > > > > >> > > > That's just a flag means "do not wait for any > > operations > > >> > > finish" > > >> > > > > >> > > > See no reason to set it true in that case. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped this > > will > > >> > > affect > > >> > > > > only > > >> > > > > >> > > > > last test (method). > > >> > > > > >> > > > The idea is to stop all nodes at last test's method > > >> finish. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Nodes that survive between tests can affect > > successive > > >> > > > > >> > > > tests. > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thats ok. we have a lot tests where nodes reusable > > >> between > > >> > > > test's > > >> > > > > >> > > methods. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > >> > > > > >> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Igniters, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > IMO nodes that survive between tests is not general > > >> > practice > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > >> I'm > > >> > > > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > >> > > > > sure is a best practice. I suggest to mark such > tests > > >> with > > >> > > > some > > >> > > > > >> > method > > >> > > > > >> > > > > overriden from AbstractTest. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > About cancel flag, please note stopAllGrids(boolean > > >> > cancel) > > >> > > > > >> > > cancel=false > > >> > > > > >> > > > > allows to wait of checkpoint ends in case > persistence > > >> > > enabled. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I still suggest to avoid stopping any nodes by > test, > > >> but > > >> > > > > validate > > >> > > > > >> not > > >> > > > > >> > > > > stopped node exist and fail test instead of siltent > > >> > implicit > > >> > > > > >> actions. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Sincerely, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 13:04, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > >> > > > > stku...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> >: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your first question, the use of > > >> > > afterTestsStopped > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > >> not > > >> > > > > >> > > > enough > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > to stop all nodes, since each individual test > > >> (method) > > >> > can > > >> > > > > start > > >> > > > > >> > > custom > > >> > > > > >> > > > > set > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > of notes during its operation, and this very test > > >> should > > >> > > > stop > > >> > > > > >> all > > >> > > > > >> > > those > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > nodes. If you delegate closing to > afterTestsStopped > > >> this > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > >> > affect > > >> > > > > >> > > > only > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > last test (method). Nodes that survive between > > tests > > >> can > > >> > > > > affect > > >> > > > > >> > > > > successive > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > tests. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-07 1:10 GMT+03:00 Maxim Muzafarov < > > >> > > > maxmu...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > I've made some research about this problem and > i > > >> think > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > >> > > > general > > >> > > > > >> > > > > we > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in > > GridAbstractTest > > >> > > class > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am > I > > >> > right? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Also, I have a question about > > stopAllGrids(boolean > > >> > > cancel) > > >> > > > > >> this > > >> > > > > >> > > > > "cancel" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > argument. Why in some cases we should interrupt > > >> > > ComputeJob > > >> > > > > >> and in > > >> > > > > >> > > > some > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > cases shouldn't? For example here: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> IgniteBaselineAffinityTopologyActivationTest#afterTest > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > we call method stopAllGrids(false) this way. > Why > > >> not > > >> > > > "true" > > >> > > > > >> > > argument > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > instead? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
