Is there a Jira to track this? I'd like to do some work on this. -Jordan
On Jul 1, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > It's come up a bunch of times before, would be great to find someone > to drive this! > http://markmail.org/message/vvk2ttrdhe6qqp2q > > Patrick > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:08 AM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 >> >> We had to do similar stuff internally at LinkedIn and most of the bugs we >> found were in the way session expiry/disconnect handling. We did a >> combination of iptables, SIGSTOP and having another client connect with >> same session id/password and close that connection. This is non trivial and >> requires some effort to wire up different pieces. >> >> However I would like to add that the even though our test cases worked we >> had weird issues during GC's and some times during long GC. GC on both >> server and client are problematic. For example clients would get a session >> expiry and then a syncconnected event but before syncconnected is processed >> there would be another session expiry. These scenarios are much harder to >> test for and reproduce. >> >> Thanks for taking this up. >> >> Thanks, >> Kishore G >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 this is a very big deal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Thawan Kooburat <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Many recent issues that I saw internally is due to incorrect handling or >>>> no sufficient testing on ZooKeeper failure scenario in the custom wrapper >>>> API or in the applications. >>>> >>>> I am thinking that we might be able to expose a few more API calls that >>>> allow user write unit tests that cover various failure scenarios (similar >>>> to the TestableZookeer in zookeeper test) . This should also minimize the >>>> effort on setting the test framework. Ideally, if we have a mock client >>>> that don't need a running the server that would be ideal, but I think it >>> is >>>> too much effort to write and maintain for all the languages. Our internal >>>> test facility is that we have a dedicated ensemble used by all unit >>> tests. >>>> This ensure application logic correctness but it is hard to test various >>>> failure scenarios. >>>> >>>> So my current thought is to expose the following functionalities. >>>> >>>> 1. zookeeper_close() that don't actually send close request to the >>>> server: This can be used to simulate a client crash without actually >>>> crashing the test program. >>>> 2. Allow client to force triggering CONNECTION_LOSS or SESSSION_EXPIRE >>>> event: This will allow the user to test their watchers and callback >>> (and >>>> possible race condition) >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have additional suggestions. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thawan Kooburat >>>> >>>
