BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always require to understand what test does and what it tests.
So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this test, - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is checked? - failure handler influence, etc. I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate the idea. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > Dmitrii, > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op > to have a proper handler? > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > looks good to me so far. > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks > like > > we > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > for > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good > that > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely > > > > nothing > > > > > in > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > > > > practical > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > > > create > > > > > a> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > > how to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > > > > product(Ignite > > > > > > > > and others). > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all > > places > > > > > with > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not > > got a > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require > > noop > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are > > covered > > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > > how to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I > > can > > > > > suggest > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be > > > > costly. > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen > > for > > > > > sure: > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > > > create > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and > > then > > > > > do it > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can > > guarantee > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I > > believe > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
