[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Semen Boikov updated IGNITE-320:
--------------------------------
    Description: Test 
CacheExpiryTest.iteratorNextShouldCallGetExpiryForAccessedEntry fails since TCK 
does not assume iterator implementation which uses pagination. Possible fix to 
do not refactor queries implementation: when iterator is created we can check 
if there is only one node in topology and swap/offheap are not enabled then do 
not use scan query, but use special iterator implementation.  (was: Test 
CacheMBStatisticsBeanTest.testExpiryOnCreation fails since TCK does not assume 
iterator implementation which uses pagination. Possible fix to do not refactor 
queries implementation: when iterator is created we can check if there is only 
one node in topology and swap/offheap are not enabled then do not use scan 
query, but use special iterator implementation.)
        Summary: Fix  
CacheExpiryTest.iteratorNextShouldCallGetExpiryForAccessedEntry  (was: Fix 
CacheMBStatisticsBeanTest.testExpiryOnCreation)

> Fix  CacheExpiryTest.iteratorNextShouldCallGetExpiryForAccessedEntry
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IGNITE-320
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-320
>             Project: Ignite
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: cache
>            Reporter: Semen Boikov
>            Assignee: Sergey Evdokimov
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: sprint-2
>
>
> Test CacheExpiryTest.iteratorNextShouldCallGetExpiryForAccessedEntry fails 
> since TCK does not assume iterator implementation which uses pagination. 
> Possible fix to do not refactor queries implementation: when iterator is 
> created we can check if there is only one node in topology and swap/offheap 
> are not enabled then do not use scan query, but use special iterator 
> implementation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to