[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1909?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13967675#comment-13967675
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-1909:
--------------------------------------
-1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12639960/ZOOKEEPER-1909.patch
against trunk revision 1586200.
+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
+1 tests included. The patch appears to include 3 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 failed core unit tests.
+1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests.
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2038//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2038//artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2038//console
This message is automatically generated.
> removeWatches doesn't return NOWATCHER when there is no watch set
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-1909
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1909
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: server
> Affects Versions: 3.5.0
> Reporter: Raul Gutierrez Segales
> Fix For: 3.5.0
>
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1909.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1909.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1909.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1909.patch
>
>
> ZOOKEEPER-442 introduced support for a new opcode: removeWatches. The way it
> was implemented though, implies that you need to check on the client side if
> a watch/watcher is set *before* you send your request to the server. If you
> don't, ZK will just swallow your request and won't return an error code if
> there isn't a watch set for that path.
> I noticed this whilst implementing removeWatches for Kazoo [1]. As mentioned,
> I guess it could be expected that clients should do the check on their side
> but I think that the correct thing would to have the server do the validation
> and return the error code accordingly as well.
> [~rakeshr], [~phunt]: thoughts?
> [1]
> https://github.com/rgs1/kazoo/commit/44ca48e975aeea3fd0664fe13136a72caf89e54f
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
