[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-21832?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16145016#comment-16145016
]
Hadoop QA commented on AMBARI-21832:
------------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12884074/AMBARI-21832.patch
against trunk revision .
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:red}-1 tests included{color}. The patch doesn't appear to include
any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this
patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to
verify this patch.
{color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase
the total number of release audit warnings.
{color:red}-1 javac{color}. The patch appears to cause the [build to
fail|https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-trunk-test-patch/12084//artifact/patch-work/patchJavacWarnings.txt].
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-trunk-test-patch/12084//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Reject PATCH VDFs with Services that are not Included in the Cluster
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMBARI-21832
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-21832
> Project: Ambari
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: ambari-server
> Reporter: Dmitry Lysnichenko
> Assignee: Dmitry Lysnichenko
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 2.6.0
>
> Attachments: AMBARI-21832.patch
>
>
> Currently there is an odd scenario which can occur when patch repositories
> are registered which have services not yet installed. Consider the following
> scenario:
> - Install ZooKeeper, Storm on HDP 2.6.0.0-1234
> - Register/patch a {{PATCH}} VDF for Storm and Accumulo for 2.6.0.1-9999
> - Install Accumulo
> Which version does Accumulo use - the {{STANDARD}} repository or the
> {{PATCH}}? If the {{PATCH}} repository is chosen, this will now prevent
> reversion of the patch since there's no prior version for Accumulo to revert
> back to.
> If Accumulo uses the {{STANDARD}} repo, then there needs to be a lot of
> design and UX flow work provided to indicate that a {{PATCH}} which was
> previously applied can be re-applied for the new service. This also causes
> problems for patch reversion since now there would be two upgrades which need
> to be reverted to "get rid" of the patch.
> For the timeframe for Ambari 2.6, we should reject VDFs that include services
> which are not installed. This will prevent the problem.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
