OpenWire Version 2 is not the latest version
Hi, This page http://activemq.apache.org/openwire-version-2-specification.html claims that "OpenWire Version 2 is not the latest version". It links to another page that shows a table that lists configuration parameters but none of the "additional fields in the OpenWire commands" promised on the page that linked to it. My question: what is the latest version of OpenWire and where can I find a complete and authoritative specification? Cheers, Andreas
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not thread-s...
Github user jbertram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228 @clebertsuconic, I updated to protect `get()` as well. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208791390
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
FWIW, the LRUCache is also used in
`org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.protocol.openwire.OpenWireProtocolManager`
and access is controlled with `synchronized` blocks.
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208790685
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
My guess is that the LRUCache is there mainly because it was used in Apollo
and basically the whole selector implementation from Apollo was ported over to
the Artemis code-base during the Apache donation process. It is a simple
mitigation against excessive parsing, but perhaps it is premature optimization
as well. I don't see a big problem with pulling it out. It would simplify the
code-base a bit and eliminate the threading problem as well. I certainly don't
see any reason to invest resources into a more
robust/elegant/higher-performance cache implementation.
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208765467
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
I would have two points here then:
If perf here isn't critical, why even bother then having an LRUCache?
Removing it would remove any threading issues right.
If it is critical:
Then a more elegant option than sync blocks would look to update LRUCache
to extend ConcurrentLinkedHashMap
(https://github.com/ben-manes/concurrentlinkedhashmap) or even better full hog
replace it entirely and migrate to using something like Caffeine
(https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine)
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not thread-s...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228 shouldn't you also protected get? I don't think it's thread safe. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2227: ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleString
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227 My point was more ensuring in future its not regressed again. ---
[GitHub] activemq-nms-amqp issue #2: AMQNET-575: NMS AMQP Client Rework
Github user RagnarPaulson commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms-amqp/pull/2 Thanks Tim, All good feedback. I've cleaned up the comments and white space. Added a new sample, and improved some of the 'toString' methods used in debugging/development. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 I have moved this into 2.6.x but I had to manually make the changes.. can you check 2.6.x please? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2230: ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2230 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2230: ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3...
GitHub user gemmellr opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2230 ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3 to resolve sequencing issues As before with #2221, but now cherry picked to 2.6.x with needed fixups. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gemmellr/activemq-artemis delivery-multiplexing-2.6.x Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2230.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2230 commit 7214d56581cbd5082b9bfddfc57f95e946d2433f Author: Robbie Gemmell Date: 2018-08-07T14:35:16Z ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3 to resolve sequencing issues Adds test exposing broker behaviour from issues stemming from PROTON-1892 and PROTON-1901 (cherry picked from commit b0c65ba2dd5b7d1bc0dc75f9370c52da49f39bbf) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2221: ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3 to res...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2221 @gemmellr I'm a bit out of context on the test change you need to make.. I tried to do it myself but I didn't have the context of your changes. can y ou cherry-pick it then as you mentioned? I won't do it until you cherry-pick it into there. I have not been using PRs on 2.6.x (they are useles on other branches than master)... So, please make sure you reference the commit from upstream? commit will do on your commit message. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2221: ARTEMIS-1978: update to proton-j 0.27.3...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2221 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2223: ARTEMIS-2015 PriorityLinkedListImpl::is...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2223 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2227: ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleS...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2229: ARTEMIS-2018 - Add bridge events to plu...
GitHub user cshannon opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229 ARTEMIS-2018 - Add bridge events to plugin API Add callbacks to handle bridge events including beforeDeliverBridge, afterDeliverBridge and afterAcknowledgeBridge You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-2018 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2229 commit 95ff39f6bfae9c51e6c3c1d1ac2782f60f5d2daa Author: Christopher L. Shannon (cshannon) Date: 2018-08-08T18:10:22Z ARTEMIS-2018 - Add bridge events to plugin API Add callbacks to handle bridge events including beforeDeliverBridge, afterDeliverBridge and afterAcknowledgeBridge ---
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
+1 Thanks Chris. I'll look forward to getting this updated in the next release then. (apologies if this message is a duplicate) On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, I will let the vote proceed as is after it is finished the fix Art > referenced can be merged into the branch for the next release. > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:22 AM Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > For me, this is certainly the best option. There can/will be other > > releases, and other fixes are likely to be needed as well. > > > > On 8 August 2018 at 11:27, Christopher Shannon > > wrote: > > > The other option (which I think is better now that I think about it) is > > > since I can't re-run a new vote anyways for 2 weeks is to just let this > > > vote go and then do another release in the next month. It's the same > > work > > > and at least the people who have been waiting for fixes in this release > > > will get them this week. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:25 AM Christopher Shannon < > > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I can cancel the vote if you want but I won't be able to re-run a new > > vote > > >> for 10 days to 2 weeks. I'm out of the office next week so if I > start a > > >> new vote today then 72 hours won't have passed before I'm gone on > > vacation > > >> so I won't be able to finish up the rest of the release stuff. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arthur Naseef wrote: > > >> > > >>> Can we get this commit added to the release? It's currently on the > > master > > >>> branch. > > >>> > > >>> d8c80a98212ee5d73a281483a2f8b3f517465f62 > > >>> > > >>> Please let me know what else needs to be done to get it into the > > release. > > >>> > > >>> Art > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Naseef > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > I found that one issue was not fully fixed. Working on a fix for > it > > >>> now. > > >>> > > > >>> > Sorry I didn't find this earlier - keep forgetting I can't test > this > > >>> with > > >>> > Chrome. > > >>> > > > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6954 > > >>> > > > >>> > Art > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM, jgenender > > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> +1 > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Jeff > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> -- > > >>> >> Sent from: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404 > > >>> . > > >>> >> html > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2202: ARTEMIS-2000: For ScaleDown set the RoutingTyp...
Github user RoddieKieley commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2202 @clebertsuconic Will do when possible. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2227: ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleString
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227 @michaelandrepearce You are right indeed, but the change of @mtaylor is quite smart here: he is avoiding the allocation of byte[] at all, like in the original code :100: ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user franz1981 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208672703
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
@jbertram @michaelandrepearce If it is not an hot path I thing that what
Justin is suggesting makes totally sense: anyway if we can afford to put guava
in place I believe that
https://google.github.io/guava/releases/16.0/api/docs/com/google/common/cache/CacheBuilder.html#maximumSize(long)
would be a good option too.
It will scale with a factor specified by the concurrent level specified,
but it could (I do not remember TBH) introduce some behavioural changes from
the current impl.
I understand both @michaelandrepearce and @jbertram opinions so I think
that the general rule to balance changes vs effectiveness on common case apply
here: I leave you decide how much this tradeoff apply here...
I'm honored to be "summoned" :+1:
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208667762
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
I imagine there might be a "better" option here in terms of performance
than using `synchronized`, but then again this isn't exactly on the hot path.
This code is only executed when a selector/filter is first created (e.g. for a
JMS consumer, for a bridge, etc.), and it is only executed once (i.e. execution
isn't looped). Most situations where cache growth is problematic (e.g. lots of
consumers with lots of different selectors connecting and disconnecting often)
are generally considered messaging anti-patterns anyway. For such pathological
cases using `synchronized` is potentially quite a bit faster than a complete
lack of thread safety because it prevents unfettered cache growth. In my
opinion @franz1981's time is better spent elsewhere as this smacks of premature
optimization.
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228#discussion_r208655107
--- Diff:
artemis-selector/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/selector/impl/SelectorParser.java
---
@@ -80,11 +78,15 @@ public static BooleanExpression parse(String sql)
throws FilterException {
StrictParser parser = new StrictParser(new
StringReader(actual));
e = parser.JmsSelector();
}
-cache.put(sql, e);
+synchronized (cache) {
--- End diff --
Must be a better way than sync blocks.
@franz1981 ideas?
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CP...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2227: ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleString
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227 The test that was added in the original PR testOutOfBoundsThrownOnMalformedString seems to still pass on master, as such should this test be updated? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2228: ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not t...
GitHub user jbertram opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228 ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not thread-safe You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-2017 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2228 commit 0df3ee161194094d0adaf8e53325c4e4eec7fdcc Author: Justin Bertram Date: 2018-08-08T16:10:04Z ARTEMIS-2017 SelectorParser cache not thread-safe ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2224: Two small improvements to tests
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2224 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2227: ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleS...
GitHub user mtaylor opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227 ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleString The original fix was removed during a refactor You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/mtaylor/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-1482-2 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2227 commit 7520a5198a5f37a3afdbdf28fbb0625d424021a2 Author: Martyn Taylor Date: 2018-08-08T15:33:11Z ARTEMIS-1482 Add back check for SimpleString ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2226: ARTEMIS-2016 fix flaky test QueueContro...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2226 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2225: Fix flaky QueueControl tests
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2225 ---
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
Ok, I will let the vote proceed as is after it is finished the fix Art referenced can be merged into the branch for the next release. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:22 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > For me, this is certainly the best option. There can/will be other > releases, and other fixes are likely to be needed as well. > > On 8 August 2018 at 11:27, Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > The other option (which I think is better now that I think about it) is > > since I can't re-run a new vote anyways for 2 weeks is to just let this > > vote go and then do another release in the next month. It's the same > work > > and at least the people who have been waiting for fixes in this release > > will get them this week. > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:25 AM Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I can cancel the vote if you want but I won't be able to re-run a new > vote > >> for 10 days to 2 weeks. I'm out of the office next week so if I start a > >> new vote today then 72 hours won't have passed before I'm gone on > vacation > >> so I won't be able to finish up the rest of the release stuff. > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arthur Naseef wrote: > >> > >>> Can we get this commit added to the release? It's currently on the > master > >>> branch. > >>> > >>> d8c80a98212ee5d73a281483a2f8b3f517465f62 > >>> > >>> Please let me know what else needs to be done to get it into the > release. > >>> > >>> Art > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > >>> > >>> > I found that one issue was not fully fixed. Working on a fix for it > >>> now. > >>> > > >>> > Sorry I didn't find this earlier - keep forgetting I can't test this > >>> with > >>> > Chrome. > >>> > > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6954 > >>> > > >>> > Art > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM, jgenender > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> +1 > >>> >> > >>> >> Jeff > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404 > >>> . > >>> >> html > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> >
HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th
I have been cherry-picking everything that makes sense from master into 2.6.x... I want to have a release cut on Friday/10th. I will start cutting it on Thurstday the 9th afternoon so the vote is sent Friday Morning (US EST time) If you are aware of any blockers for the 2.6.x.. please let me know. -- Clebert Suconic
Re: ActiveMQ java Client using pkcs certificates
Those type attributes might not be needed on newer JVMs, since PKCS12 is the default now and it auto detects for compatibility. On 7 August 2018 at 22:14, Arthur Naseef wrote: > Try this: > > >keyStore="broker.p12" keyStorePassword="password" > keyStoreType="pkcs12" > trustStore="client.p12" trustStorePassword="password" > trustStoreType="pkcs12" /> > > > Notice the keyStoreType and trustStoreType attributes. > > Art > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Justin Bertram wrote: > >> I would expect PKCS stores to work fine. Have you tried them and found >> they didn't work? >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:59 AM, zollen wrote: >> >> > I see all samples of ActiveMQ SSL clients using jdk stores, but I see no >> > client example of using ActiveMQSslConnectionFactory with pkcs >> > certificates. >> > I would be much apprecipated if anyone could provide any information >> about >> > ActiveMQSslConnectionFactory with pkcs. >> > >> > Thanks >> > zollen >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev- >> > f2368404.html >> > >>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
For me, this is certainly the best option. There can/will be other releases, and other fixes are likely to be needed as well. On 8 August 2018 at 11:27, Christopher Shannon wrote: > The other option (which I think is better now that I think about it) is > since I can't re-run a new vote anyways for 2 weeks is to just let this > vote go and then do another release in the next month. It's the same work > and at least the people who have been waiting for fixes in this release > will get them this week. > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:25 AM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can cancel the vote if you want but I won't be able to re-run a new vote >> for 10 days to 2 weeks. I'm out of the office next week so if I start a >> new vote today then 72 hours won't have passed before I'm gone on vacation >> so I won't be able to finish up the rest of the release stuff. >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arthur Naseef wrote: >> >>> Can we get this commit added to the release? It's currently on the master >>> branch. >>> >>> d8c80a98212ee5d73a281483a2f8b3f517465f62 >>> >>> Please let me know what else needs to be done to get it into the release. >>> >>> Art >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: >>> >>> > I found that one issue was not fully fixed. Working on a fix for it >>> now. >>> > >>> > Sorry I didn't find this earlier - keep forgetting I can't test this >>> with >>> > Chrome. >>> > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6954 >>> > >>> > Art >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM, jgenender wrote: >>> > >>> >> +1 >>> >> >>> >> Jeff >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404 >>> . >>> >> html >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
On 6 August 2018 at 13:44, Christopher Shannon wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I merged in the fix to sort the start up script issue and I re-created the > ActiveMQ 5.15.5 release and it's ready for another vote. > > The list of resolved issues is here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210=12343307 > > You can get the release artifacts here: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.15.5/ > > Maven repository is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1170/ > > Source tag: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=22ace0463970445421e02ac2325354cf27b1b634 > > Please vote to approve this release. The vote will remain open for 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 > [ ] -1 (provide specific comments) > > Here's my +1 +1 (non-binding) - Verified the signature and checksum files. - Ran the source build (no tests) - Started the broker from the binary tar.gz and ran some AMQP client examples against it. Robbie
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
The other option (which I think is better now that I think about it) is since I can't re-run a new vote anyways for 2 weeks is to just let this vote go and then do another release in the next month. It's the same work and at least the people who have been waiting for fixes in this release will get them this week. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:25 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can cancel the vote if you want but I won't be able to re-run a new vote > for 10 days to 2 weeks. I'm out of the office next week so if I start a > new vote today then 72 hours won't have passed before I'm gone on vacation > so I won't be able to finish up the rest of the release stuff. > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arthur Naseef wrote: > >> Can we get this commit added to the release? It's currently on the master >> branch. >> >> d8c80a98212ee5d73a281483a2f8b3f517465f62 >> >> Please let me know what else needs to be done to get it into the release. >> >> Art >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: >> >> > I found that one issue was not fully fixed. Working on a fix for it >> now. >> > >> > Sorry I didn't find this earlier - keep forgetting I can't test this >> with >> > Chrome. >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6954 >> > >> > Art >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM, jgenender wrote: >> > >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404 >> . >> >> html >> >> >> > >> > >> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 #3
I can cancel the vote if you want but I won't be able to re-run a new vote for 10 days to 2 weeks. I'm out of the office next week so if I start a new vote today then 72 hours won't have passed before I'm gone on vacation so I won't be able to finish up the rest of the release stuff. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arthur Naseef wrote: > Can we get this commit added to the release? It's currently on the master > branch. > > d8c80a98212ee5d73a281483a2f8b3f517465f62 > > Please let me know what else needs to be done to get it into the release. > > Art > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > > > I found that one issue was not fully fixed. Working on a fix for it now. > > > > Sorry I didn't find this earlier - keep forgetting I can't test this with > > Chrome. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6954 > > > > Art > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM, jgenender wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404. > >> html > >> > > > > >
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2225: Fix flaky QueueControl tests
GitHub user jdanekrh opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2225
Fix flaky QueueControl tests
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jdanekrh/activemq-artemis
jd_flaky_queue_control_tests
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2225.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #2225
commit fba805cb85a1d7ef5425e9e16f39697b49ea0ef0
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T14:56:20Z
NO-JIRA fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testListMessagesWithEmptyFilter
The below error is prevented by using Wait.assertEquals
where Assert.assertEquals was used previously.
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected :2
Actual :1
[...]
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testListMessagesWithEmptyFilter(QueueControlTest.java:827)
commit 2c8930f7081c081b49ce1c9117aa6098d4690ae6
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T14:59:30Z
NO-JIRA fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testListMessagesWithNullFilter
The below error is prevented by using Wait.assertEquals
where Assert.assertEquals was used previously.
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected :2
Actual :1
[...]
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:542)
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testListMessagesWithNullFilter(QueueControlTest.java:804)
commit 7222133993b54fdb51979c69a02764670a32ee2e
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T15:10:00Z
NO-JIRA fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testResetMessagesAdded
The occasional assertion error is prevented by using Wait.assertEquals
where Assert.assertEquals was used previously.
I did not observe the timing issue on all asserts (only on the first
two), but there is no harm in replacing them all.
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected :2
Actual :1
commit f8e97abbf381a8bf6eb4fb955d9108de1aa33f8c
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T16:22:57Z
ARTEMIS-2016 fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testRemoveAllWithPagingMode
Parameters going into Wait.waitFor were originally wrong, because
`durationMillis: 3, sleepMillis: 100` means you would test the condition
only once. This commit is changing the durationMillis from 3ms to 3s,
swapping the two numbers (duration 100ms, sleep 3ms) would also be
reasonable, I think.
Next, Wait.assertEquals is here being used, instead of Assert.assertTrue.
I saw the test fail only once, and never was able to reproduce it again,
but I think this commit does improve the test and so it is worthwhile.
java.lang.AssertionError
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2651)
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMessageMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2615)
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testRemoveAllWithPagingMode(QueueControlTest.java:1554)
commit 099b7640cf5936b402c8c820e3679db41e963a98
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T18:02:41Z
NO-JIRA fix flaky tests
QueueControlTest#testChangeMessagePriority{,WithInvalidValue}
The occasional assertion error is prevented by using Wait.assertEquals
where Assert.assertEquals was used previously.
commit d1a0356f1cd8c25dc7a33f8d97a3cca91f8ff575
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T18:16:18Z
NO-JIRA fix flaky tests QueueControlTest#testResetMessagesExpired
The occasional assertion error is prevented by using Wait.assertEquals
where Assert.assertEquals was used previously.
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected :1
Actual :0
[...]
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:542)
at
org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testResetMessagesExpired(QueueControlTest.java:2370)
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2226: ARTEMIS-2016 fix flaky test QueueContro...
GitHub user jdanekrh opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2226 ARTEMIS-2016 fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testRemoveAllWithPagingMode Parameters going into Wait.waitFor were originally wrong, because `durationMillis: 3, sleepMillis: 100` means you would test the condition only once. This commit is changing the durationMillis from 3ms to 3s, swapping the two numbers (duration 100ms, sleep 3ms) would also be reasonable, I think. Next, Wait.assertEquals is here being used, instead of Assert.assertTrue. I saw the test fail only once, and never was able to reproduce it again, but I think this commit does improve the test and so it is worthwhile. java.lang.AssertionError at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2651) at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMessageMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2615) at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testRemoveAllWithPagingMode(QueueControlTest.java:1554) You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/jdanekrh/activemq-artemis jd_maybe_swapped_wait_args Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2226.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2226 commit baaefa15595da5ec30218ca1b35d9fe80512007e Author: Jiri Danek Date: 2018-08-07T16:22:57Z ARTEMIS-2016 fix flaky test QueueControlTest#testRemoveAllWithPagingMode Parameters going into Wait.waitFor were originally wrong, because `durationMillis: 3, sleepMillis: 100` means you would test the condition only once. This commit is changing the durationMillis from 3ms to 3s, swapping the two numbers (duration 100ms, sleep 3ms) would also be reasonable, I think. Next, Wait.assertEquals is here being used, instead of Assert.assertTrue. I saw the test fail only once, and never was able to reproduce it again, but I think this commit does improve the test and so it is worthwhile. java.lang.AssertionError at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2651) at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.assertMessageMetrics(QueueControlTest.java:2615) at org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.management.QueueControlTest.testRemoveAllWithPagingMode(QueueControlTest.java:1554) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2224: Two small improvements to tests
GitHub user jdanekrh opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2224
Two small improvements to tests
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jdanekrh/activemq-artemis
jd_various_small_improvements
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2224.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #2224
commit 78ddb155db6a0eec568d99d28b7cb9b7b4a74181
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T14:42:04Z
NO-JIRA fix unused parameter `durable` in AmqpClientTestSupport#sendMessages
commit 4fb3f5efe786bfd36c8699650e4675bea7058109
Author: Jiri Danek
Date: 2018-08-07T19:01:04Z
NO-JIRA improve assertions in QueueControlTest
This commit replaces assert{True,Equals} with more specific assertion
methods.
---
