> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. What do you think?
Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it is > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better exception > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll explain > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community, > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this commit, > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, > aren’t we? > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with > no-op: please visit this page > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there are > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally > muted failures? > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially if > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join the > process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, and > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not > without deep analysis? > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result: > some of us knew it only now. > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'. > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > Dmitriy. > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache > > Way all the time :) > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code! > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with > > NoOpHandler. > > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation: > > > > 1. No copy paste code > > 2. Reduce changes. > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search. > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach > [1] > > I can go further and prepare full fix. > > > > What do you think? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix > itself, > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the > > list > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others > > to > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest > > help > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a > > > decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and > > should > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before > Dmitriy > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of > tests. > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after > revisiting > > > no-op test list. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew, > Dmitrii & > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double > > check > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And > > this > > > is how a community works. > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to > do > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but > has > > > other goals. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion, > > > > > > > > > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > failure > > > > like node stop or exception thrown > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic > of > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. > using > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, > IMO. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1] > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern. > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling? > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess > > > that > > > > > patches brings to the code base. > > > > > Example of cleanup [2] > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and > > review > > > > this > > > > > cleanup patch. > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements". > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean. > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit. > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect > > > > > > >> in a single fix? > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure > > handler > > > > > > > fallbacks were added? > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any > > > > > meaningful > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all > no-op > > or > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice). > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a > > > couple > > > > of > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, > aren't > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these > test > > > to > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to > locate > > > > these > > > > > > > > > overridden method now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing > > > tests. > > > > > Is > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > Ok > > > > > > > > > for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for > > > > several > > > > > > > tests? > > > > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper > > > explanation > > > > > why > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to > > demonstrate > > > > any > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate > failure > > > > > handler. > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why > > > tests > > > > > > fail > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler? > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and > > > make > > > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for > > > several > > > > > > > tests? > > > > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван < > > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a > > > name > > > > > > > "massive > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler > > only > > > > > where > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed". > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly > ok > > > to > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > failures > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's > > > contributions > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do > > things > > > > > better > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I > hope > > - > > > > no. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further > > > > > > improvements. > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify > > > your > > > > > > > intent. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel > free > > > to > > > > > > > convince > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван < > > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does > aforementioned > > > > patch > > > > > > > made > > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- > > > > meaningful > > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really > > important. > > > > But > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And > > why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov < > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide > PR > > or > > > > to > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to > explain > > > > what > > > > > > > > problems > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the > > explanation > > > I > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > rollback > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown > > > > problems. > > > > > > At > > > > > > > > > least, > > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem > > we're > > > > > > fixing > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but > to > > > > > prevent > > > > > > > > merge > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. > > Code > > > > > speaks > > > > > > > > > louder > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone > > has > > > > an > > > > > > > idea, > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii > > > contribution, > > > > > but > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > initial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and > > you > > > > > will > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov > < > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests > > to > > > be > > > > > > > > > successful > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to > > provide > > > > > > > arguments > > > > > > > > > why > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the > > > > problem, > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead > of > > > > fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide > the > > > > > > > > explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by > > > no-op > > > > > > > handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case > > > > arguments > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy > > Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov. > > > > > > > > > >
