thanks for the link Chris! this log is sufficient for what I wanted to do.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, the answer is no right now. The log messages from the > concurrent JUnit processes get interleaved, and there is no meaningful > identifier to help put them back into sequence for an individual JUnit > process. > > However, if you want to see the output from just one test suite, then > that's still possible. The Ant JUnit task writes the output of each suite > to a separate file, and it's possible to navigate through the Jenkins test > report to get a view of this. Here is an example: > > https://builds.apache.org/view/PreCommit%20Builds/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-B > uild/2828/testReport/org.apache.zookeeper.test/StaticHostProviderTest/testT > woInvalidHostAddresses/ > > If that's not sufficient, then I think we could come up with a custom > Log4J layout configuration to write the current JUnit fork ID in each log > message, similar to how we already inject myid. Then, you'd be able to > grep for something like "threadid=3" and get just the log lines from fork > 3. If that sounds good, let me know, and I'll file a jira and put > together a patch. > > Thanks! > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > On 8/13/15, 10:46 PM, "Alexander Shraer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Question regarding test.junit.thread - when it is >1 like on hudson, is > >there a way to separate the logging messages from the different threads or > >identify which message belongs to which thread ? > > > >On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> I didn't notice any other problems. I was +1 (non-binding) on RC1, > >>aside > >> from the discussion of these 2 issues. Thanks for your hard work on > >>this > >> RC, Michi! > >> > >> --Chris Nauroth > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/1/15, 10:29 PM, "Michi Mutsuzaki" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Ok both of these issues are resolved now. Let me know if you guys > >> >noticed any other issues with RC1. If not, I'll create another RC this > >> >weekend. > >> > > >> >On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Chris Nauroth > >> ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Thank you, Michi. I filed a patch for this on ZOOKEEPER-2198. > >> >> > >> >> --Chris Nauroth > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 5/30/15, 1:19 PM, "Michi Mutsuzaki" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Ok, since the vote didn't pass anyways, let's fix these problems: > >> >>> > >> >>>1. Change the default test.junit.thread to 1. Chris, could you submit > >> >>>a patch for this? > >> >>>2. Fix the comment in FinalRequestProcessor.java. I'll submit a > >>patch. > >> >>> > >> >>>Let me know if you guys have seen any other problems. Also, please > >>let > >> >>>me know if the voting period of 2 weeks was too short. I'd like to > >> >>>make sure everybody gets enough time to vote. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Flavio Junqueira > >> >>><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> Another thing that is possibly not a reason to drop the config, but > >> >>>>I'm > >> >>>>getting this with this RC: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> [javac] > >> > >>>>>>/home/fpj/code/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha/src/java/main/org/apache/zookeep > >>>>>>er > >> >>>>/s > >> >>>>erver/FinalRequestProcessor.java:134: error: unmappable character > >>for > >> >>>>encoding ASCII > >> >>>> [javac] // was not being queued ??? ZOOKEEPER-558) > >> >>>>properly. This happens, for example, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is a trivial problem to solve, but it does generate a > >>compilation > >> >>>>error for me. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -Flavio > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On 30 May 2015, at 15:26, Flavio Junqueira > >> >>>>><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I don't see a reason to -1 the release just because of the number > >>of > >> >>>>>threads junit is using. I've been a bit distracted with other > >>things, > >> >>>>>but I'm coming back to the release candidate now. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> On 23 May 2015, at 22:09, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> I can go either way. Flavio, do you think we should set the > >>default > >> >>>>>> test.junit.threads to 1 and create another release candidate? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> I haven't been able to repro this locally. Here are the > >>details on > >> >>>>>>>my Ubuntu VM: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> uname -a > >> >>>>>>> Linux ubuntu 3.16.0-30-generic #40~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jan 15 > >> >>>>>>>17:43:14 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> java -version > >> >>>>>>> java version "1.8.0_45" > >> >>>>>>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_45-b14) > >> >>>>>>> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.45-b02, mixed mode) > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> ant -version > >> >>>>>>> Apache Ant(TM) version 1.9.4 compiled on April 29 2014 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I'm getting 100% passing test runs with multiple concurrent > >>JUnit > >> >>>>>>>processes, including the tests that you mentioned were failing in > >> >>>>>>>your environment. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I don't have any immediate ideas for what to try next. > >>Everything > >> >>>>>>>has been working well on Jenkins and multiple dev machines, so it > >> >>>>>>>seems like there is some subtle environmental difference in this > >>VM > >> >>>>>>>that I didn't handle in the ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Is this problematic for the release candidate? If so, then I > >> >>>>>>>recommend doing a quick change to set the default > >>test.junit.threads > >> >>>>>>>to 1 in build.xml. That would restore the old single-process > >> >>>>>>>testing > >> >>>>>>>behavior. We can change test-patch.sh to pass > >> >>>>>>>-Dtest.junit.threads=8 > >> >>>>>>>on the command line, so we'll still get speedy pre-commit runs on > >> >>>>>>>Jenkins where it is working well. We all can do the same when we > >> >>>>>>>run > >> >>>>>>>ant locally too. Let me know if this is important, and I can put > >> >>>>>>>together a patch quickly. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Thanks! > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> From: Flavio Junqueira > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:37 PM > >> >>>>>>> To: Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Cc: Zookeeper > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha > >>candidate > >> >>>>>>>1 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> That's the range I get in the vm. I also checked the load from > >>log > >> >>>>>>>test and the port it was trying to bind to is 11222. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 22 May 2015, at 23:14, Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >>wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> No worries on the delay. Thank you for sharing. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> That's interesting. The symptoms look similar to something we > >>had > >> >>>>>>>seen from an earlier iteration of the ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch that > >>was > >> >>>>>>>assigning ports from the ephemeral port range. This would cause > >>a > >> >>>>>>>brief (but noticeable) window in which the OS could assign the > >>same > >> >>>>>>>ephemeral port to a client socket while a server test still held > >> >>>>>>>onto > >> >>>>>>>that port assignment. It was particularly noticeable for tests > >>that > >> >>>>>>>stop and restart a server on the same port, such as tests > >>covering > >> >>>>>>>client reconnect logic. In the final committed version of the > >> >>>>>>>ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch, I excluded the ephemeral port range from > >>use > >> >>>>>>>by > >> >>>>>>>port assignment. Typically, that's 32768 - 61000 on Linux. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Is it possible that this VM is configured to use a different > >> >>>>>>>ephemeral port range? Here is what I get from recent stock > >>Ubuntu > >> >>>>>>>and CentOS installs: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range > >> >>>>>>> 32768 61000 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> From: Flavio Junqueira > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 2:47 PM > >> >>>>>>> To: Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Cc: Zookeeper > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha > >>candidate > >> >>>>>>>1 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Sorry about the delay, here are the logs: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~fpj/logs-3.5.1-rc1/ > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> the load test is giving bind exceptions. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 21 May 2015, at 23:02, Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >>wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Thanks, sharing logs would be great. I'll try to repro > >> >>>>>>>independently with > >> >>>>>>> JDK8 too. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 5/21/15, 2:30 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" > >> > >>>>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>D > >> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I accidently removed dev from the response, bringing it back in. > >> >>>>>>> The tests are failing intermittently for me. In the last run, I > >>got > >> >>>>>>>these > >> >>>>>>> failing: > >> >>>>>>> [junit] Tests run: 8, Failures: 0, Errors: 4, Skipped: 0, Time > >> >>>>>>>elapsed: > >> >>>>>>> 30.444 sec[junit] Test org.apache.zookeeper.test.LoadFromLogTest > >> >>>>>>>FAILED > >> >>>>>>> [junit] Tests run: 86, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0, Time > >> >>>>>>>elapsed: > >> >>>>>>> 264.272 sec[junit] Test > >>org.apache.zookeeper.test.NioNettySuiteTest > >> >>>>>>>FAILED > >> >>>>>>> Still the same setup, linux + jdk 8. I can share logs if > >>necessary. > >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:28 PM, Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >>wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Ah, my mistake. I saw "Azure" and my brain jumped right to > >> >>>>>>>"Windows". > >> >>>>>>> I suppose the thing for me to check then is JDK8. I believe all > >> >>>>>>>prior > >> >>>>>>> testing was on JDK7. > >> >>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> From: Flavio Junqueira > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:18 PM > >> >>>>>>> To: Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha > >>candidate > >> >>>>>>>1 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yeah, I started with an Ubuntu vm, so it's Linux. I haven't > >>tested > >> >>>>>>>the RC > >> >>>>>>> on windows yet. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> -FlavioFrom:Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> Sent:?5/?21/?2015 6:46 PM > >> >>>>>>> To:[email protected]<http://zookeeper.apache.org/ > >;Flavio > >> >>>>>>>Junqueira > >> >>>>>>> Subject:Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha > >>candidate 1 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> If I understand correctly, you're seeing test failures > >>specifically > >> >>>>>>>on > >> >>>>>>> Windows (not Linux) after ZOOKEEPER-2183. Is that right? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Tests have been stable in Linux Jenkins and dev environments > >>after > >> >>>>>>>that > >> >>>>>>> patch, but perhaps there is another issue specific to Windows. > >> >>>>>>>I'll > >> >>>>>>>take > >> >>>>>>> a look on Windows. It might also be worthwhile to detect > >>Windows > >> >>>>>>>and set > >> >>>>>>> test.junit.threads to 1 automatically in build.xml as a > >>stop-gap. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 5/21/15, 9:05 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" > >> > >>>>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>D > >> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yep, that did it. > >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:23 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki > >> >>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I wonder if it's related to ZOOKEEPER-2183. Could you try > >>setting > >> >>>>>>> test.junit.threads to 1 in build.xml? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Flavio Junqueira > >> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>><[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>d > >> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>wrote: > >> >>>>>>> I'm not being able to get a clean build for the RC. I'm running > >>it > >> >>>>>>>on > >> >>>>>>> an azure vm with ubuntu and oracle jdk8. The java tests failing > >> >>>>>>>vary. At > >> >>>>>>> this point, I just wanted to check if I'm the only one seeing > >> >>>>>>>failures. > >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:25 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki > >> >>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> This is the second release candidate for 3.5.1-alpha. This > >> >>>>>>>candidate > >> >>>>>>> fixes some issues found in the first candidate, including > >> >>>>>>> ZOOKEEPER-2171. The full release notes is > >> >>>>>>> available at: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=123 > >> >>>>>>>10 > >> >>>>>>>80 > >> >>>>>>> 1 > >> >>>>>>> &version=12326786 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by May 29th 2015, 23:59 > >>UTC+0. > >> >>>>>>>*** > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Source files: > >> >>>>>>> > >> http://people.apache.org/~michim/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha-candidate-1/ > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Maven staging repo: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zook > >> >>>>>>>ee > >> >>>>>>>pe > >> >>>>>>> r > >> >>>>>>> /zookeeper/3.5.1-alpha/ > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> The tag to be voted upon: > >> >>>>>>> > >>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.5.1-rc1/ > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > >> >>>>>>>release: > >> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Should we release this candidate? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >
