[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1412?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13228049#comment-13228049
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-1412:
--------------------------------------

+1 overall.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12518111/ZOOKEEPER-1412_trunk.patch
  against trunk revision 1297740.

    +1 @author.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    +1 tests included.  The patch appears to include 6 new or modified tests.

    +1 javadoc.  The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

    +1 javac.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac 
compiler warnings.

    +1 findbugs.  The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 1.3.9) 
warnings.

    +1 release audit.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of 
release audit warnings.

    +1 core tests.  The patch passed core unit tests.

    +1 contrib tests.  The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/991//testReport/
Findbugs warnings: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/991//artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/991//console

This message is automatically generated.
                
> java client watches inconsistently triggered on reconnect
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-1412
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1412
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: server
>    Affects Versions: 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.0, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3
>            Reporter: Botond Hejj
>            Assignee: Patrick Hunt
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 3.3.5, 3.4.4, 3.5.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1412_br33.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1412_br33.patch, 
> ZOOKEEPER-1412_br34.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1412_br34.patch, 
> ZOOKEEPER-1412_trunk.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1412_trunk.patch
>
>
> I've observed an inconsistent behavior in java client watches. The 
> inconsistency relates to the behavior after the client reconnects to the 
> zookeeper ensemble.
> After the client reconnects to the ensemble only those watches should trigger 
> which should have been triggered also if the connections was not lost. This 
> means if I watch for changes in node /foo and there is no change there than 
> my watch should not be triggered on reconnecting to the ensemble.
> This is not always the case in the java client.
> I've debugged the issues and I could locate the case when the watch is always 
> triggered on reconnect. This is consistently happening if I connect to a 
> follower in the ensemble and I don't do any operation which goes through the 
> leader.
> Looking at the code I see that the client stores the lastzxid and sends that 
> with its request. This is 0 on startup and will be updated everytime from the 
> server replies. This lastzxid is also sent to the server after reconnect 
> together with watches. The server decides which watch to trigger based on 
> this lastzxid probably because that should mean the last known state of the 
> client. If this lastzxid is 0 than all the watches are triggered.
> I've checked why is this lastzxid 0. I thought it shouldn't be since there 
> was already a request to the server to set the watch and in the reply the 
> server could have sent back the zxid but it turns out that it sends just 0. 
> Looking at the server code I see that for requests which doesn't go through 
> the leader the follower server just sends back the same zxid that the client 
> sent.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to