>> We stop, for now, then you will chill a >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then on >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and >> constructive manner. Agree
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > Anton. > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. > > So, this fix make things better. > > I think we shouldn't revert it. > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests. > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch? > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > > demonstrate > >>> the idea. > > > > Dmitriy, > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of > > unacceptable code merge situation. > > Such merges should NEVER happen again. > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive > duplication > > and fixes without proper reason investigation. > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he > merged. > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable. > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some > objections. > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead. > > > > Dmitrii, > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the > > reasons for > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if > needed. > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday > evening, > > the code will be rolled back. > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated. > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons > for > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > >> > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > >> > >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >
