This seems to be a reproducing seed, at least 2/2 ant test -Dtestcase=TestPackages -Dtests.seed=C29471044D369FD3 -Dtests.multiplier=2 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=et-EE -Dtests.timezone=Europe/Mariehamn -Dtests.asserts=true -Dtests.file.encoding=UTF-8
> On Sep 19, 2020, at 6:40 AM, Eric Pugh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’ll try and help with testing this feature more, as I have a specific > package that needs this feature. > > We are somewhat stuck in a weird time, as we’re doing some great stuff, like > the packages, to make core Solr foot print smaller, which means we need to > add more complexity to core Solr, yet at the same time, we don’t have the > (hopefully!) cleaner structure that is being worked on in the > reference_impl_dev to properly support the complexity. > > Don’t get discouraged! > >> On Sep 18, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I shall revert the changes and work on a solution >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 6:54 AM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't think it is along the Apache way to revert somebody's commit >> > without an explicit permission to do so >> Interesting, I made the Devil's Advocate argument above with the >> Apache Way specifically in mind. >> >> "Community over Code" comes up most often in terms of navigating >> interpersonal conflict and fostering contributors; that's valid and >> important. But broken builds cause concrete "Community harm" as well. >> 100%-fails slow down every developer working on Solr for whatever >> length of time the project is in that state. Established committers, >> first-PR contributors, Github forks, everyone. Leaving 100%-fails out >> there while waiting for a committer to respond or fix an issue >> prolongs that period: slowing down development and turning off new >> potential contributors all the while. So I think there's a concrete >> Apache Way argument for reverting early. >> >> Obviously the revert has to be done diplomatically or it risks >> alienating committers and undermining the other Apache Way benefits. >> But that's a question of execution not of approach. There are >> tactful, inoffensive ways to roll back a change without implying >> negligence, impugning skill-sets, etc. It's also not a concern >> that's specific to reverts - any JIRA comment or dev-list discussion >> pointing out issues runs into that. >> >> All that said, this is a Devil's Advocate argument I'm making here. I >> have no plans to go around reverting other's commits; I was just >> curious where others were on this in case it came up again later. >> >> Best, >> >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:59 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I thought we were talking about reverting your own commits, not someone >> > else’s... >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't think it is along the Apache way to revert somebody's commit >> >> >> >> without an explicit permission to do so... Not that I would personally >> >> >> >> mind if somebody did it for me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:06 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Sometimes Jenkins may take hours to take your commit, may fail in the >> >> > middle of your night, may not fail consistently, etc. That's why I >> >> > don't think giving specific timeframes makes sense, but yes, as soon as >> >> > you notice it's failing, it's either fix immediately or revert IMO. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jason Gerlowski >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If it’s inadvertently added, we either fix it within an hour or so >> >> >> > or revert the offending commit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I don't want to set specific time frames, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To play Devil's Advocate here: why wait even an hour to revert a 100% >> >> >> >> >> test failure? Reverts are usually trivial to do, unblock others >> >> >> >> >> immediately, and don't interfere with the fix process at all. >> >> >> >> >> Remembering the times I've broken the build myself, reverts even seem >> >> >> >> >> preferable from that position - reverting up front takes all the >> >> >> >> >> time-pressure off of getting out a fix. Why work under the gun when >> >> >> >> >> you don't have to? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:14 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > I believe these failures are associated to >> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14151 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > • FAILED: org.apache.solr.pkg.TestPackages.classMethod >> >> >> >> >> > • FAILED: >> >> >> > org.apache.solr.schema.PreAnalyzedFieldManagedSchemaCloudTest.testAdd2Fields >> >> >> >> >> > • FAILED: >> >> >> > org.apache.solr.schema.ManagedSchemaRoundRobinCloudTest.testAddFieldsRoundRobin >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > IMO if a temporary instability is to be introduced deliberately, >> >> >> > > it should be published on the list. If it’s inadvertently added, >> >> >> > > we either fix it within an hour or so or revert the offending >> >> >> > > commit >> >> >> >> >> > I don't want to set specific time frames, but sometimes it's >> >> >> > obviously too much time. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM Atri Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> When I said temporary, I meant 3-4 hours. Definitely not more than >> >> >> >> that. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IMO we should just roll back offending commits if they are easily >> >> >> >> identifiable. I agree with you — we all have been guilty of >> >> >> >> breaking builds (mea culpa as well). The bad part here is the >> >> >> >> longevity of the failures. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:05, Erick Erickson >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> bq. IMO if a temporary instability is to be introduced >> >> >> >>> deliberately, it should be published on the list >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Actually, I disagree. Having anything in the tests that fail 100% >> >> >> >>> of the time is just unacceptable since it becomes a barrier for >> >> >> >>> everyone else. AFAIK, if the problem can be identified to a >> >> >> >>> particular push, I have no problems with that push being >> >> >> >>> unilaterally rolled back. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The exception for me is when the problem is addressed immediately, >> >> >> >>> I’ve certainly been the source of that kind of problem, as have >> >> >> >>> others. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> What I take great exception to is the fact that some of these >> >> >> >>> tests have been failing 100% of the time for the last seven days! >> >> >> >>> If it’s the case that the full test suite was never run before the >> >> >> >>> push that’s another discussion. Yeah, it takes a long time but… >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Erick >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > On Sep 18, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Atri Sharma <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > IMO if a temporary instability is to be introduced deliberately, >> >> >> >>> > it should be published on the list. If it’s inadvertently added, >> >> >> >>> > we either fix it within an hour or so or revert the offending >> >> >> >>> > commit. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 20:26, Erick Erickson >> >> >> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/failure-report.html >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > HdfsAutoAddReplicasTest failing 100% of the time. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > TestPackages.classMethod failing 100% of the time >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > 3-4 AutoAddReplicas tests failing 98% of the time. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Is anyone looking at these? I realize the code base is changing >> >> >> >>> > a lot, and some temporary instability is to be expected. What >> >> >> >>> > I’d like is for some indication that people are actively >> >> >> >>> > addressing these. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Erick >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > -- >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Atri >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Atri >> >> >> >> >> >> Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > _______________________ > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | > http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of > whether attachments are marked as such. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
