I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is activated from any pool inside a node. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > Dmitriy, > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > Depends on the test. > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > That's not a correct fix. > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the > special handler. > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with correct > fixes. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Dmitri, > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > Thanks a lot. > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure > > handler? > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix > this. > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so, > > we have much more affected tests. > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal > issue > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures > or > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control). > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will > be > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests > from > > > > noop > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > > > > saying > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can > override > > > > > default > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" < > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch > > > block, > > > > > of > > > > > > course. > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap > it > > > with > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect > critical > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > > > > failure > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should > go. > > > > That's > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old > > > value > > > > of > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of > 100+ > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler > > was > > > > > > >> changed to > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - > write > > > here > > > > > or > > > > > > >> in the > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >
