For my part, I got a successful full test run from RC1 before starting the [VOTE]. The problem with the silent failure of multi tests could have snuck past me easily though. (Flavio, thank you for filing ZOOKEEPER-2463.) I'm curious to hear test results from others who are trying RC1.
It looks like we also need an issue to track updating the copyright notice in the docs. I don't believe this is an ASF compliance problem in the same way that an erroneous NOTICE file would be, so I propose that we address it in 3.5.3. Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc failure. Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3? Overall, how are people feeling about the RC1 [VOTE] at this point? Is anyone considering a -1, or shall we proceed (keeping in mind it's an alpha) with the intent of fixing things in a more rapid 3.5.3 release cycle? --Chris Nauroth On 7/3/16, 8:43 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: >The issue with the TestReconfigServer test is that the client port is >still used and we get a bind exception, which prevents the server from >starting. To verify this locally, I simply added some code to retry and >it works fine with that fix. Going forward we need a better fox. > >I haven't able to figure out yet the issue with the >Zookeeper_simpleSystem tests. > >I have also found something strange with the multi tests. I have created >ZK-2463 for this problem and made it a blocker for 3.5.3. > >-Flavio > >> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:25, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have spun a new ubuntu VM to check the C failures. I get three >>failures with the new installation: >> >> Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testFirstServerDown : assertion : elapsed 10911 >> tests/TestClient.cc:411: Assertion: equality assertion failed >>[Expected: -101, Actual : -4] >> tests/TestClient.cc:322: Assertion: assertion failed [Expression: >>ctx.waitForConnected(zk)] >> Failures !!! >> Run: 43 Failure total: 2 Failures: 2 Errors: 0 >> >> >> >> TestReconfigServer::testRemoveFollower/usr/bin/java >> ZooKeeper JMX enabled by default >> Using config: ./../../build/test/test-cppunit/conf/0.conf >> Starting zookeeper ... FAILED TO START >> zktest-mt: tests/ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc:61: void >>ZooKeeperQuorumServer::start(): Assertion `system(command.c_str()) == 0' >>failed. >> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted (core dumped) >>ZKROOT=./../.. CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar >>${dir}$tst >> >> -Flavio >> >> >>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Flavio, >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] >>><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hey Eddie, >>> >>> A few comments on your points: >>> >>>> >>>> - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth >>>>updating to >>>> the current year? >>> >>> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I can >>>see. >>> >>> Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/ >>>folder. Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013" >>>copyright. Images attached. >>> >>> >>> >>>> - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at >>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console >>>><https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console> >>>><https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console >>>><https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>> >>> >>> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even >>>though it isn't ideal. it is expected. >>> >>> Got it. :) >>> >>> >>>> - Also this one: >>>> >>>>https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%3C >>>>1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E >>>><https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%3 >>>>C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E> >>>> >>> >>> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better create >>>one and make it a blocker. >>> >>> Okay, gonna look for and do this. >>> >>> >>>> - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of them >>>>related >>>> to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I >>>didn't get these test failures, so it would be great to report them or >>>make sure that there are jiras for it. >>> >>> Right. I was only skeptical of my own tests because I ran the unit >>>tests on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java 1.7. >>>So, I am running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make sure it >>>was not a false negative. >>> >>> >>> >>> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad with >>>the RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It might >>>be ok given that this is still labeled alpha. >>> >>> Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are restricted >>>to the C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have >>>researched further before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :) >>> >>> Edward >> > >
