I filed ZOOKEEPER-2465 to track updating the copyright notice on all documentation pages. Edward, thank you for reporting the problem.
--Chris Nauroth On 7/3/16, 12:02 PM, "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 >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
