>> I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with 3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release.
Since the current release is alpha I also feel its OK to go ahead with RC1 and address the C client issue in 3.5.3. That way we'll get more folks trying it out and stabilize 3.5 version eventually. Probably will listen to others opinion as well. -Rakesh On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03 Jul 2016, at 17:53, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > The test failures seem to be related to test timing, not bugs, but I > haven't been able to confirm for the last two I mentioned. Granted that > timing is in some sense a bug, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to > indicate a regression or anything. > > > > > 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. > > Agreed, we need an issue for that. > > > > > Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc > > failure. Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3? > > > > I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with > 3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release. > > > 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? > > I'd say we proceed. > > -Flavio > > > > > > > > > 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
