Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Test is going to be fixed in the scope of AI 2.7 [1]. This is not
one-minute fix as there are multiple places where configuration should be
passed, and changes should be covered with tests. I muted the test for now.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> Let's not revert any commits yet. Can we find out who did the commit and
> why he/she is not fixing the test?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:21 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are you talking about
> > 'IgniteConfigurationParityTest#TestIgniteConfiguration'?
> >
> > Seems it's not hard to fix this test, it's necessary just to implement
> > missing members (at least as stubs) on .NET side in
> > IgniteConfiguration class.
> >
> > Is there a Jira issue?
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it seems folks
> > don't
> > > have time to fix the test.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit.
> > >
> > > It seems it is the only way we can keep master more or less green.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723=buildChangesDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely
> > > Dmitry Pavlov
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9733) Web Console: Add support for "type=number" on InputDialog

[Alexey Kuznetsov (JIRA)]

Alexey Kuznetsov created IGNITE-9733:


 Summary: Web Console: Add support for "type=number" on InputDialog
 Key: IGNITE-9733
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9733
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
  Components: wizards
Reporter: Alexey Kuznetsov
Assignee: Alexander Kalinin
 Fix For: 2.8


Current implementation supports only text, lets add support for number.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Let's not revert any commits yet. Can we find out who did the commit and
why he/she is not fixing the test?

D.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:21 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Are you talking about
> 'IgniteConfigurationParityTest#TestIgniteConfiguration'?
>
> Seems it's not hard to fix this test, it's necessary just to implement
> missing members (at least as stubs) on .NET side in
> IgniteConfiguration class.
>
> Is there a Jira issue?
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it seems folks
> don't
> > have time to fix the test.
> >
> >
> > Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit.
> >
> > It seems it is the only way we can keep master more or less green.
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723=buildChangesDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet
> >
> >
> > Sincerely
> > Dmitry Pavlov
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Vladimir,  I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm not
happy about cases when we are hurrying.

We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to
finish their tasks.  It is not best idea to use experience from commercial
companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? Did
someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September?

Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If contribor
does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making decision
to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss
something.

Sincerely
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Hi Igniters!
>
> As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the
> solution to be sure that implementation is reliable.
>
> About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then
> the solution is not ready to merge yet.
> I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be
> able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days.
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker.
> >
> > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
> > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7
> release.
> > >
> > > Do you agree?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731
> > >
> > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > >
> > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is
> now.
> > > >
> > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite
> understand
> > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.
> > > >
> > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
> > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov  >:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this
> > > thread
> > > > > and search for "service" word.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the
> Apache
> > > Way.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go
> through
> > > the
> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that
> > > > architectural
> > > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw
> that
> > > it
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current
> status of
> > > > the
> > > > >> service grid?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s)
> first. If
> > > it
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> > > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
> > > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private
> > > agreements,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the
> Apache
> > > Way.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Dmitriy,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not
> > > > ready.
> > > > >> We
> > > > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to
> include
> > > it
> > > > >> into
> > > > >> >> 2.7.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread?
> Probably I
> > > > >> missed
> > > > >> >> it.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir 

Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi,

Are you talking about 'IgniteConfigurationParityTest#TestIgniteConfiguration'?

Seems it's not hard to fix this test, it's necessary just to implement
missing members (at least as stubs) on .NET side in
IgniteConfiguration class.

Is there a Jira issue?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it seems folks don't
> have time to fix the test.
>
>
> Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit.
>
> It seems it is the only way we can keep master more or less green.
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723=buildChangesDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet
>
>
> Sincerely
> Dmitry Pavlov



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

[Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi,

I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it seems folks don't
have time to fix the test.


Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit.

It seems it is the only way we can keep master more or less green.

https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723=buildChangesDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet


Sincerely
Dmitry Pavlov

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9732) Add joins to Spark Dataframe examples

[Valentin Kulichenko (JIRA)]

Valentin Kulichenko created IGNITE-9732:
---

 Summary: Add joins to Spark Dataframe examples
 Key: IGNITE-9732
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9732
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Improvement
  Components: examples, spark
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Valentin Kulichenko
 Fix For: 2.7


{{IgniteDataFrameExample}} creates two tables - {{city}} and {{person}}, but 
only {{person}} is actually used. Need to add join examples.

Would also be great to demonstrate the fact that optimization is working and 
joins are executed in Ignite, not Spark (using {{explain()}}, maybe?).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi Igniters!

As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the
solution to be sure that implementation is reliable.

About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then
the solution is not ready to merge yet.
I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be
able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days.

[1] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker.
>
> It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
> > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.
> >
> > Do you agree?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> >
> > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now.
> > >
> > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand
> > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.
> > >
> > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
> > > discussions on the list. But it is another story.
> > >
> > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this
> > thread
> > > > and search for "service" word.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache
> > Way.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions
> > related
> > > to
> > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through
> > the
> > > >> dev
> > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that
> > > architectural
> > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that
> > it
> > > >> was
> > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
> > > >>
> > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of
> > > the
> > > >> service grid?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov  > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If
> > it
> > > >> is
> > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
> > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private
> > agreements,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache
> > Way.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov  > >:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Dmitriy,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not
> > > ready.
> > > >> We
> > > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include
> > it
> > > >> into
> > > >> >> 2.7.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I
> > > >> missed
> > > >> >> it.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope.
> > This
> > > >> is a
> > > >> >> > huge
> > > >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not
> > be
> > > >> >> able to
> > > >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct -
> > 29
> > > >> Oct)
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope,
> > > >> isn't
> > > >> >> > it? I
> > > >> >> > > > find it very important.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >> nizhi...@apache.org
> > > >> >> >:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova.
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release 

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4861: Ignite 2.5.1 p14

[macrergate]

GitHub user macrergate opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4861

Ignite 2.5.1 p14



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-2.5.1-p14

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4861.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 #4861


commit 3f4b2ae4f594e8c73b5a9c4b86f2351c2bae591e
Author: Anton Kalashnikov 
Date:   2018-05-23T09:24:51Z

IGNITE-8561 SingleSegmentLogicalRecordsIterator is broken - Fixes #4045.

(cherry picked from commit 21678bc)

commit 49929b73a00f758ef099ea99f8c6f54373c30a95
Author: EdShangGG 
Date:   2018-04-28T16:27:27Z

IGNITE-7628 SqlQuery hangs indefinitely with additional not registered in 
baseline node.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura 

commit 95b749460b5fa32deecb946865944e854d9745d3
Author: Dmitriy Sorokin 
Date:   2018-05-24T13:03:41Z

IGNITE-8584 Provide ability to terminate any thread with enabled test 
features.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura 

commit 8ac69e68ecfc1c31b02004d33157d3f9b85a7b6e
Author: Andrey Gura 
Date:   2018-05-24T13:56:42Z

IGNITE-8563 Fixed WAL file archiver does not propagate file archiving error 
to error handler

commit ef63514bfa38c595017ebec62c42a93c90e0a062
Author: Dmitriy Govorukhin 
Date:   2018-05-24T15:04:02Z

IGNITE-8583 DataStorageMetricsMXBean.getOffHeapSize include checkpoint 
buffer size - Fixes #4054.

Signed-off-by: dpavlov 

(cherry picked from commit 86c1899)

commit 04d00be82369f633f26955656441147f53cf2da1
Author: Sergey Chugunov 
Date:   2018-05-24T15:11:47Z

IGNITE-8560 Update index validation utility to use statistical check 
approach - Fixes #4051.

Signed-off-by: Ivan Rakov 

(cherry-picked from commit #76e1fe754d7a8bd059d7ab64d17cbefa4913a702)

commit c457aa60084e1805b7fdbbc88d870ffdc36d14fa
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-04-06T07:35:17Z

IGNITE-7933 Checkpoing file markers should be written atomically - Fixes 
#3633.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Goncharuk 

(cherry-picked from commit #4a0695ceae2f99c4841e8382e723daff4580ea3d)

commit 6b28e8d76bc0119917af0a738d9f07ff794cde20
Author: Anton Kalashnikov 
Date:   2018-05-25T09:01:10Z

IGNITE-8540 Fast cleanup of PDS when joining node is not in baseline - 
Fixes #4037.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Goncharuk 

(cherry-picked from commit #3f14d2b35d7818196598e8541590186e06b8edbb)

commit 504a0ef759917b65cdb4428f9e28769b384e080e
Author: Sergey Chugunov 
Date:   2018-05-25T10:29:26Z

IGNITE-7933 compilation error fix after cherry-pick

commit 46277009573aedd13eb5a8eafb1af0e52f5fabc1
Author: Andrey V. Mashenkov 
Date:   2018-04-16T17:43:36Z

IGNITE-7972 Fixed NPE in TTL manager on unwindEvicts. - Fixes #3810.

Signed-off-by: dpavlov 

(cherry picked from commit 737933e)

commit 9f7ec7fdf1d9144fb9211e9334a9dbd8548eac97
Author: Ivan Daschinskiy 
Date:   2018-05-29T14:38:38Z

IGNITE-8624 Added reproducer of IGNITE-7972 issue. - Fixes #4077.

Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Pavlov 

(cherry picked from commit d191cef)

commit 907e05f8e35a721629690253ce4de272f101b400
Author: Aleksei Scherbakov 
Date:   2018-05-31T13:38:33Z

IGNITE-8651 VisrTxTask fails when printing transactions having implicit 
single type - Fixes #4096.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Goncharuk 

commit 19bef904d53138609a573b3bc71f83fcc434658e
Author: Ivan Rakov 
Date:   2018-05-31T13:56:14Z

IGNITE-8476 AssertionError exception occurs when trying to remove node from 
baseline under loading

(cherry picked from commit 5e6e4e5)

commit dc1cc39ffc0cdb2abc2767852883d6c8307cf9ea
Author: Anton Kalashnikov 
Date:   2018-05-31T13:06:52Z

IGNITE-8530 fixed onNodeLeft for InitNewCoordinatorFuture - Fixes #4086.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Goncharuk 

(cherry picked from commit 49fe8cd)

commit 383f3ad52d20045477fe4fed61d1d56e97ece35d
Author: dgladkikh 
Date:   2018-06-01T15:34:50Z

IGNITE-8603 Add JMX-metric to cluster: baseline nodes - Fixes #4060.

Signed-off-by: Ivan Rakov 

(cherry picked from commit 1f6266c)

commit a716bbee641a123f313325140ded10dc0c2de9ba
Author: Sergey Skudnov 
Date:   2018-05-14T10:35:14Z

IGNITE-8138 Uptime output with days - Fixes #3775.
Cherry-picked from dfb0b9ee35afeb6adc546160c37b08a85d869f59
Signed-off-by: dpavlov 

commit 9c381fd3ef0f75e2fed4562f562904ce5ede6bc3
Author: Ivan Daschinskiy 
Date:   2018-05-10T11:56:35Z

IGNITE-8424 Add directory sorting and skip duplicated config file in order 
to consistently start nodes.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura 

(cherry picked from commit bec3e9b)

commit dc8ba0932a944f3e966ebbe2af053488d1fe9b28
Author: Sergey Chugunov 
Date:   

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker.

It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov :

> Igniters,
>
> I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
> critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now.
> >
> > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand
> > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.
> >
> > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
> > discussions on the list. But it is another story.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this
> thread
> > > and search for "service" word.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache
> Way.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions
> related
> > to
> > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through
> the
> > >> dev
> > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that
> > architectural
> > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
> > >>
> > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that
> it
> > >> was
> > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
> > >>
> > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of
> > the
> > >> service grid?
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If
> it
> > >> is
> > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
> > >> >
> > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
> > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private
> agreements,
> > >> and
> > >> > do not to discuss it on the list.
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
> > >> >
> > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache
> Way.
> > >> >
> > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov  >:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Dmitriy,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not
> > ready.
> > >> We
> > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include
> it
> > >> into
> > >> >> 2.7.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I
> > >> missed
> > >> >> it.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com
> > >> >:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope.
> This
> > >> is a
> > >> >> > huge
> > >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not
> be
> > >> >> able to
> > >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct -
> 29
> > >> Oct)
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope,
> > >> isn't
> > >> >> > it? I
> > >> >> > > > find it very important.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> nizhi...@apache.org
> > >> >> >:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
> > >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > >> >> akuznet...@apache.org
> > >> >> > >:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Vova,
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4839: Ignite 9683 2

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4839


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4860: IGNITE-9501 Backward compatibility fix

[Jokser]

GitHub user Jokser opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4860

IGNITE-9501 Backward compatibility fix



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite 
ignite-9501-compatibility-fix

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4860.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 #4860


commit 88c38d0c000154735c1e1aa7c092ddb37dbf0c90
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-27T18:50:31Z

IGNITE-9501 Backward compatibility fix.




---

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Igniters,

I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.

Do you agree?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :

> I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now.
>
> We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand
> what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.
>
> About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
> discussions on the list. But it is another story.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread
> > and search for "service" word.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related
> to
> >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the
> >> dev
> >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that
> architectural
> >> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
> >>
> >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it
> >> was
> >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
> >>
> >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of
> the
> >> service grid?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it
> >> is
> >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
> >> >
> >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> >> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
> >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements,
> >> and
> >> > do not to discuss it on the list.
> >> >
> >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
> >> >
> >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
> >> >
> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >> >
> >> >> Dmitriy,
> >> >>
> >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not
> ready.
> >> We
> >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it
> >> into
> >> >> 2.7.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I
> >> missed
> >> >> it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com
> >> >:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This
> >> is a
> >> >> > huge
> >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be
> >> >> able to
> >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> dpavlov@gmail.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29
> >> Oct)
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope,
> >> isn't
> >> >> > it? I
> >> >> > > > find it very important.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> nizhi...@apache.org
> >> >> >:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
> >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
> >> >> akuznet...@apache.org
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Vova,
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9731) NPE is possible during WAL flushing

[Andrey Kuznetsov (JIRA)]

Andrey Kuznetsov created IGNITE-9731:


 Summary: NPE is possible during WAL flushing
 Key: IGNITE-9731
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
Reporter: Andrey Kuznetsov
 Fix For: 2.7
 Attachments: WalRolloverRecordLoggingTest.java

{{FileWriteAheadLogManager.flush()}} seems to be not thread-safe anymore in 
master branch. The test attached produces the following NPE:

{noformat}
java.lang.NullPointerException
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.wal.FileWriteAheadLogManager$FileHandle.getSegmentId(FileWriteAheadLogManager.java:2371)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.wal.FileWriteAheadLogManager$FileWriteHandle.needFsync(FileWriteAheadLogManager.java:2642)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.wal.FileWriteAheadLogManager$FileWriteHandle.fsync(FileWriteAheadLogManager.java:2668)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.wal.FileWriteAheadLogManager$FileWriteHandle.access$1900(FileWriteAheadLogManager.java:2445)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.wal.FileWriteAheadLogManager.flush(FileWriteAheadLogManager.java:866)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager$Checkpointer.markCheckpointBegin(GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java:3633)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager$Checkpointer.doCheckpoint(GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java:3126)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager$Checkpointer.body(GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java:3025)
at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
{noformat}

This could be possibly brought by commit [1].

[1] 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/2f72fe758d4256c4eb4610e5922ad3d174b43dc5




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: I'm new to Ignite

[Zhenya]

Welcome, Alexander !


Hi Alexander,

I've added you to the list of contributors. Now you can assign an issue  
to

yourself.

Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask.

Welcome to the Apache Ignite Community!

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

Couple links that can help you to onboard.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines


чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 20:28, Александр Лучников  
:



I'm new to Ignite and I would like to join Apache Ignite development.
My JIRA's login is AldoRaine

Re: I'm new to Ignite

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Alexander,

I've added you to the list of contributors. Now you can assign an issue to
yourself.

Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask.

Welcome to the Apache Ignite Community!

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

Couple links that can help you to onboard.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines


чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 20:28, Александр Лучников :

> I'm new to Ignite and I would like to join Apache Ignite development.
> My JIRA's login is AldoRaine
>

Re: ML examples wrap logic in IgniteThread. Why?

[Denis Magda]

Thanks Yury, good to know about that!

--
Denis

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:49 PM Юрий Бабак  wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Thanks for this notice, actually this is some kind of atavism. Run this
> code inside IgniteThread was a requirement when we had a distributed
> matrices. But now all our algorithms builds over distributed datasets and
> we don't need it anymore.
>
> I created JIRA ticket 
> for this.
>
> Thanks,
> Yuriy
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 0:20, Denis Magda :
>
> > Yury, ML folks,
> >
> > I've mentioned a strange thing. Looks like every example we have wraps up
> > its logic in the following block
> >
> > IgniteThread igniteThread = new
> > IgniteThread(ignite.configuration().getIgniteInstanceName(),
> > KMeansClusterizationExample.class.getSimpleName(), () -> {
> >
> >
> > //ML specific stuff (training, predicting, calculations, etc.)
> >
> > });
> >
> > igniteThread.start();
> > igniteThread.join();
> >
> >
> > Why do we do that?
> >
> > Denis
> >
>

I'm new to Ignite

[Александр Лучников]

I'm new to Ignite and I would like to join Apache Ignite development.
My JIRA's login is AldoRaine

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3467: IGNITE-7282 .NET: Thin client: Add failover capab...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3467


---

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now.

We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand
what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.

About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
discussions on the list. But it is another story.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov :

> Folks,
>
> Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread
> and search for "service" word.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
>> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
>>
>>
>> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to
>> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the
>> dev
>> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that architectural
>> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
>>
>> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it
>> was
>> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
>>
>> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the
>> service grid?
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it
>> is
>> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
>> >
>> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
>> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
>> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements,
>> and
>> > do not to discuss it on the list.
>> >
>> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
>> >
>> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
>> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
>> >
>> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov :
>> >
>> >> Dmitriy,
>> >>
>> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready.
>> We
>> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it
>> into
>> >> 2.7.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I
>> missed
>> >> it.
>> >> >
>> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov > >:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This
>> is a
>> >> > huge
>> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be
>> >> able to
>> >> > > review/fix/test it properly.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> dpavlov@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29
>> Oct)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope,
>> isn't
>> >> > it? I
>> >> > > > find it very important.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhi...@apache.org
>> >> >:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Hello, Vova.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
>> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
>> >> akuznet...@apache.org
>> >> > >:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Vova,
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Folks,

Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread
and search for "service" word.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda  wrote:

> >
> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
>
>
> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to
> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the dev
> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that architectural
> and release decisions need to be done publicly.
>
> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it was
> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.
>
> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the
> service grid?
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is
> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
> >
> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> > According to the statement "our current agreement"
> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements,
> and
> > do not to discuss it on the list.
> >
> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
> >
> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready.
> We
> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it
> into
> >> 2.7.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed
> >> it.
> >> >
> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >> >
> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is
> a
> >> > huge
> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be
> >> able to
> >> > > review/fix/test it properly.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29
> Oct)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope,
> isn't
> >> > it? I
> >> > > > find it very important.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org
> >> >:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hello, Vova.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
> >> akuznet...@apache.org
> >> > >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Vova,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Denis Magda]

>
> Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.


It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to
a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the dev
list. Otherwise, it will be inundated.  However, agree, that architectural
and release decisions need to be done publicly.

Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it was
questionable whether it gets added to the release or not.

*Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the
service grid?

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
wrote:

> Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is
> not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
>
> I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
> According to the statement "our current agreement"
> I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, and
> do not to discuss it on the list.
>
> Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.
>
> Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
>> Dmitriy,
>>
>> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We
>> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into
>> 2.7.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed
>> it.
>> >
>> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :
>> >
>> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a
>> > huge
>> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be
>> able to
>> > > review/fix/test it properly.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
>> > > >
>> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't
>> > it? I
>> > > > find it very important.
>> > > >
>> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov > >:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello, Vova.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
>> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
>> akuznet...@apache.org
>> > >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Vova,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is
not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.

I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
According to the statement "our current agreement"
I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, and
do not to discuss it on the list.

Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement.

Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov :

> Dmitriy,
>
> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We
> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into
> 2.7.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
>
> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed
> it.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >
> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a
> > huge
> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able
> to
> > > review/fix/test it properly.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
> > > >
> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't
> > it? I
> > > > find it very important.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Vova.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for clear release status.
> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov <
> akuznet...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Dmitriy,

This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We
never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into
2.7.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
wrote:

> Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a
> huge
> > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to
> > review/fix/test it properly.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
> > >
> > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't
> it? I
> > > find it very important.
> > >
> > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > >
> > > > Hello, Vova.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for clear release status.
> > > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov  >:
> > > >
> > > > > Vova,
> > > > >
> > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :

> Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge
> feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to
> review/fix/test it properly.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
> >
> > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I
> > find it very important.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :
> >
> > > Hello, Vova.
> > >
> > > Thank you for clear release status.
> > > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> > >
> > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov :
> > >
> > > > Vova,
> > > >
> > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4734: IGNITE-9549 control.sh add command to collect inf...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4734


---

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge
feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to
review/fix/test it properly.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
wrote:

> I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
>
> Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I
> find it very important.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :
>
> > Hello, Vova.
> >
> > Thank you for clear release status.
> > I'm +1 for your proposal.
> >
> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov :
> >
> > > Vova,
> > >
> > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Add reviewer field to Apache Ignite JIRA project

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Anton,

Thank you for bringing this significant concern here.

I'm going to use this field in total correspondence with assignee field
usage. We don't set assignee unless someone agrees to be a developer for
that feature.

Otherwise, it is better to keep an issue as unassigned. Same implies to the
reviewer field.

So reviewer is someone, who is ready and going to do the review. Unless we
not sure who will do a review, mention process continues to work.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c6013b99940de32aae831a0b76e8fd53febe5040e9e0d67abb4f62a5@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E



чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:23, Anton Vinogradov :

> Currently, you may ask for a review by mention someone and asking him to
> review.
> And this approach looks good to me.
>
> In case we'll invent reviewer field who will set the reviewer?
> It's NOT ok to set somebody as a reviewer!
> You should ask somebody to be a reviewer first.
> And in case he agrees he will just make a review. No reason to set a
> useless field in that case.
>
> вт, 25 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > I like the idea.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ignite Enthusiasts,
> > >
> > > During the planning of release 2.7, I've faced with the situation when
> it
> > > is completely not clear who is going to review ticket.
> > >
> > > Usually, we do not reassign tickets to a reviewer, but info about
> planned
> > > reviewer can be very useful for all reviewers, who select some
> > contribution
> > > to pick up into a review.
> > >
> > > Please share your vision about the idea of adding a reviewer field
> (type:
> > > user) in addition to the assignee field.
> > >
> > > If we agree I will try to ask the Infra team on Friday 28.09.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> >
>

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9730) JdbcThinDatabaseMetadata.getTables() is case-sensitive

[Pat Patterson (JIRA)]

Pat Patterson created IGNITE-9730:
-

 Summary: JdbcThinDatabaseMetadata.getTables() is case-sensitive
 Key: IGNITE-9730
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9730
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Pat Patterson


Create a table {{Tester}}, try to get its metadata via 
{{JdbcThinDatabaseMetadata.getTables()}}. No metadata is returned unless you 
use an uppercase table name.

Issue seems to be that {{matches()}} in {{JdbcRequestHandler}} is case 
sensitive, unlike {{matches()}} in the client driver at 
{{JdbcDatabaseMetadata}}.

Easily reproducible:
{noformat}
public static void testGetTables() throws ClassNotFoundException, SQLException {
// Register JDBC driver.
Class.forName("org.apache.ignite.IgniteJdbcThinDriver");

// Open JDBC connection.
try (Connection conn = 
DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:ignite:thin://127.0.0.1/")) {
  String tableName = "Tester";

  // Create database table
  try (Statement stmt = conn.createStatement()) {
stmt.executeUpdate("CREATE TABLE " + tableName + " (" +
" ID LONG PRIMARY KEY, NAME VARCHAR) " +
" WITH \"template=replicated\"");
  }

  // Get database metadata
  DatabaseMetaData md = conn.getMetaData();

  // Get table metadata
  ResultSet rs = md.getTables(conn.getCatalog(), "", tableName, new 
String[]{"TABLE"});

  System.out.println((rs.next() ? "Found metadata for " : "No metadata for 
") + tableName);

  // Try again with uppercase
  tableName = tableName.toUpperCase();
  rs = md.getTables(conn.getCatalog(), "", tableName, new 
String[]{"TABLE"});

  System.out.println((rs.next() ? "Found metadata for " : "No metadata for 
") + tableName);
}
  }
{noformat}
Expected output:
{noformat}
Found metadata for Tester
Found metadata for TESTER
{noformat}
Actual output:
{noformat}
No metadata for Tester
Found metadata for TESTER
{noformat}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: [IMPORTANT] Apache Ignite 2.7 and Java 11 support

[Taras Ledkov]

Folks,

The JDK11 TC tests results is not totally OK but look like the most 
issues are related to the tests environment.

e.g. properties, path resolving, class loaders etc.

The core functions and core functions of modules works properly (see TC 
run [1]).


We have the umbrella ticket [2] to track issues related to details of 
run on JDK 9/10/11.
I guess the major priority issue is patch the ignite run scripts to 
launch the base functionality on new JDKs [3].


[1]. https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1953935
[2]. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8441
[3]. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9727


On 21.09.2018 0:04, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:

Not because of Java (here I would like to relax :) ), but because of
- MVCC stabilization
- and service grid availability,
my vote goes to option 2.

But the final decision is up to Nikolay, as release manager. If he agrees
to make a wider-scope release, then ok, let's go to 2.

чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 23:54, Vladimir Ozerov :


Dmitry,

Migration to Java 9 started a year ago. In 4 months commercial users will
stop receiving Java 8 updates without buying commercial licence. This may
trigger a wave of migrations inside commercial organizations, sometimes
urgent. And the only migration option would be Java 11, as neither Java 9,
not Java 10 will be supported since the next week.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:23 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
wrote:


Hi Vladimir,

Do you know if update notifier can get and record java version from a

node

and send it to Apache Ignite site? Or/And what is the most popular

version

now?

I guess most existing users will continue to use their current Java, most
likely Java 8. And they will also require a huge amount of time to

migrate.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 23:00, Vladimir Ozerov :


Igniters, we have a problem.

*TL;DR;*
Ignite may be seriously broken in Java 11. This affects ignite.sh,
Hibernate integration, JTA integration. And we cannot test it before

code

freeze due to Java 11 release schedule.

We need to understand whether we shift release, or plan immediate AI

2.8

afterwarвs, or ignore the problem until a number of user compliants

appear.

*Long story*
As you may know we already put some efforts on Java 9 support in Ignite
[1]. Specifically, during earlier releases we reworked all code

affected

by

Java 9 changes and added several "--add-export" and "--add-module"

flags

to

support some packages which are not accessible by default. We never
implemented any modules in Ignite.

As a result, currently Apache Ignite mostly works fine with Java 9. If

node

is started in standalone mode, we add mentioned flags to JVM arguments

by

default, and no actions are needed from user side. If node is started

in

embedded mode, user has to provide required flags manually [2]. This is
acceptable state for us until module subsystem is integrated somehow

with

the product.

But then we decided to perform extensive testing of current master on

Java

9/10/11 versions. Thanks to Peter Ivanov, we setup required

environment.

During this activity we read more docs about Java 11. We revealed, that

in

this release a number of packages we depend on will be removed

completely

from JDK as a part of JEP 320 [3]. *JTA *and *Hibernate* integrations

will

stop work out of the box. Moreover, "--add-module" flag will stop

working,

what may affect ignite.sh.

Things are even worse because Java 11 will be released exactly by our
planned code freeze date, so we cannot even test it appropriately right
now. So we need to revisit out Java 9+ support strategy for the nearest
releases.

*Possible solutions*
1) Relax and move Java 9+ support to AI 2.8 scope
Pros: Java 8 will be supported till January 2019 [4] so we still have

some

time. We can plan AI 2.8 to Nov-Dec this year.
Cons: more and more users will try Java 11 (not Java 9 or 10, they will

be

hidden from official page) during this time, and without Java 11

testing

we

may end up with not-working product.

2) Move AI 2.7 code freeze to the middle of October to have a time to

test

and fix big problems with Java 11.
Pros: Java 11 will be released in the end of the next week [5]. We take
some additional time to test us with Java 11, fix what can be fixed,

find

and document workaround for things which cannot be fixed.
Cons: AI 2.7 will be released in the end of October.

Another small "cons" for the second approach is that we will have more

time

for MVCC stabilization, and improve chances of service grid to be

included

into release (from what I heard from Nikolay and Vyacheslav, there is a
good progress for now). But remember that our previous expirience with
things like that is constantly shifting release dates.

Please share your thoughts on what should we do with Java 11.

Vladimir.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6728
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9288
[3] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/320

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)

Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I
find it very important.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :

> Hello, Vova.
>
> Thank you for clear release status.
> I'm +1 for your proposal.
>
> чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov :
>
> > Vova,
> >
> > Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Vova.

Thank you for clear release status.
I'm +1 for your proposal.

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov :

> Vova,
>
> Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Alexey Kuznetsov]

Vova,

Huge +1 to do a stabilization.


-- 
Alexey Kuznetsov

Re: [DISCUSSION] Add reviewer field to Apache Ignite JIRA project

[Anton Vinogradov]

Currently, you may ask for a review by mention someone and asking him to
review.
And this approach looks good to me.

In case we'll invent reviewer field who will set the reviewer?
It's NOT ok to set somebody as a reviewer!
You should ask somebody to be a reviewer first.
And in case he agrees he will just make a review. No reason to set a
useless field in that case.

вт, 25 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> I like the idea.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ignite Enthusiasts,
> >
> > During the planning of release 2.7, I've faced with the situation when it
> > is completely not clear who is going to review ticket.
> >
> > Usually, we do not reassign tickets to a reviewer, but info about planned
> > reviewer can be very useful for all reviewers, who select some
> contribution
> > to pick up into a review.
> >
> > Please share your vision about the idea of adding a reviewer field (type:
> > user) in addition to the assignee field.
> >
> > If we agree I will try to ask the Infra team on Friday 28.09.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
>

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9729) Ability to start GridQueryProcessor in parallel

[Anton Kalashnikov (JIRA)]

Anton Kalashnikov created IGNITE-9729:
-

 Summary: Ability to start GridQueryProcessor in parallel
 Key: IGNITE-9729
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9729
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Anton Kalashnikov


After task 
[StartCachesInParallel|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8006] we 
can start caches in parallel but GridQueryProcessor is narrow place because it 
should be start consistently by following reasons:
* checking index to duplicate(and other checking) require one order on every 
nodes.
* onCacheStart and createSchema contains a lot of mutex.
* maybe it has other reasons.

After this task GridCacheProcessor#prepareStartCaches should be rewrited.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] SomeFire closed pull request #22: IGNITE-9697 [TC Bot] Autocomplete branch for TC field

[GitBox]

SomeFire closed pull request #22: IGNITE-9697 [TC Bot] Autocomplete branch for 
TC field
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-teamcity-bot/pull/22
 
 
   

This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenance:

As this is a foreign pull request (from a fork), the diff is supplied
below (as it won't show otherwise due to GitHub magic):

diff --git 
a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ci/conf/ChainAtServer.java
 
b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ci/conf/ChainAtServer.java
index fc61c75..325327f 100644
--- 
a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ci/conf/ChainAtServer.java
+++ 
b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ci/conf/ChainAtServer.java
@@ -32,6 +32,12 @@
 /** Suite identifier by teamcity identification for root chain. */
 @Nonnull public String suiteId;
 
+/** URL for git integration. */
+@Nullable public String gitApiUrl;
+
+/** URL for JIRA integration. */
+@Nullable public String jiraApiUrl;
+
 public ChainAtServer() {
 
 }
@@ -39,6 +45,8 @@ public ChainAtServer() {
 public ChainAtServer(ChainAtServer o) {
 this.serverId = o.serverId;
 this.suiteId = o.suiteId;
+this.gitApiUrl = o.gitApiUrl;
+this.jiraApiUrl = o.jiraApiUrl;
 }
 
 /** {@inheritDoc} */
@@ -52,12 +60,14 @@ public ChainAtServer(ChainAtServer o) {
 ChainAtServer srv = (ChainAtServer)o;
 
 return Objects.equals(serverId, srv.serverId) &&
-Objects.equals(suiteId, srv.suiteId);
+Objects.equals(suiteId, srv.suiteId)&&
+Objects.equals(gitApiUrl, srv.gitApiUrl)&&
+Objects.equals(jiraApiUrl, srv.jiraApiUrl);
 }
 
 /** {@inheritDoc} */
 @Override public int hashCode() {
-return Objects.hash(serverId, suiteId);
+return Objects.hash(serverId, suiteId, gitApiUrl, jiraApiUrl);
 }
 
 /**
diff --git a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/index.html 
b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/index.html
index 1dc6eba..73cfb07 100644
--- a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/index.html
+++ b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/index.html
@@ -78,23 +78,29 @@
 
 function showSuitesForPrCheckData(result) {
 var res = "";
+
 for (var i = 0; i < result.length; i++) {
 var chainAtServer = result[i];
 //res+="Check
 PR";
 
+gitUrls.set(chainAtServer.serverId, chainAtServer.gitApiUrl);
+
 res += "";
 res += "Server: ";
 res += "Chain: ";
 res += "Base branch:  ";
-res += "Branch:  ";
+res += "Branch:  ";
 res += "";
 // res+="";
 res += "";
 res += "";
 }
+
 $("#suitesForPrCheck").html(res);
-}
 
+sendRequestsToFillAutocompleteLists();
+}
 
 function showBuildsOnServers(result) {
 var res = "";
diff --git a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/js/common-1.6.js 
b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/js/common-1.6.js
index 6ef59d0..7487c2f 100644
--- a/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/js/common-1.6.js
+++ b/ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/webapp/js/common-1.6.js
@@ -202,3 +202,95 @@ function tcHelperLogout() {
 } catch (e) {
 }
 }
+
+/**
+ * Change autocomplete filter to show results only when they starts from 
written text.
+ */
+$.ui.autocomplete.filter = function (array, term) {
+var matcher = new RegExp("^" + $.ui.autocomplete.escapeRegex(term), "i");
+
+return $.grep(array, function (value) {
+return matcher.test(value.label || value.value || value);
+});
+};
+
+var callbackRegistry = {};
+
+/**
+ * Send request to another site.
+ *
+ * @param url URL.
+ * @param onSuccess Function for success response.
+ * @param onError Function for fail response.
+ */
+function scriptRequest(url, onSuccess, onError) {
+var scriptOk = false;
+
+var callbackName = 'cb' + String(Math.random()).slice(-6);
+
+url += ~url.indexOf('?') ? '&' : '?';
+url += 'callback=callbackRegistry.' + callbackName;
+
+callbackRegistry[callbackName] = function(data) {
+scriptOk = true;
+
+delete callbackRegistry[callbackName];
+
+onSuccess(data);
+};
+
+function checkCallback() {
+if (scriptOk)
+return;
+
+delete callbackRegistry[callbackName];
+
+onError(url);
+}
+
+var script = document.createElement('script');
+
+script.onload = script.onerror = checkCallback;
+script.src = url;
+
+document.body.appendChild(script);
+}
+
+/**
+ * Key - server id.
+ * Value - url to git api.
+ *
+ * @type {Map}
+ */
+var gitUrls = new Map();
+
+/**
+ * Send requests to the git to get pull requests for the branch autocomplete 
lists.
+ */
+function sendRequestsToFillAutocompleteLists() {
+for (var entry of gitUrls.entries())
+scriptRequest(entry[1] + "pulls?sort=updated=desc", 
fillBranchAutocompleteList);
+}

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9728) JDK11: external class loader problem

[Taras Ledkov (JIRA)]

Taras Ledkov created IGNITE-9728:


 Summary: JDK11: external class loader problem
 Key: IGNITE-9728
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9728
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Taras Ledkov
Assignee: Taras Ledkov


A lot of tests fail with {{ClassNotFoundException}} because external class 
loader set up incorrect.





--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4386: IGNITE-8220

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4386


---

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Please ignore. I missed the branch.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
> important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
> TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with
> scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then:
>
> 1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7
> fix version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of
> them are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what
> we call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets to
> 2.7 unless you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This
> means absolute ban for any new features.
> 2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this
> time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features
> which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4
> weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
> 3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote.
>
> This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will
> contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before
> going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on
> AI 2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during
> stabilization phase.
>
> In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, Petr.
>>
>> My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error
>> message if one use old version.
>>
>> В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
>> > I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest
>> versions of Ubuntu.
>> >
>> >
>> > However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release
>> scripts do not honour latest GPG versions.
>> > I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release
>> script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just
>> warn user about old version of GPG and exit?
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello, Petr.
>> > >
>> > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux.
>> > > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2]
>> > >
>> > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment.
>> > > Can you check fix on your environment?
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665
>> > >
>> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808
>> > >
>> > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
>> > > > Hi, Nikolay
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and
>> they are OK.
>> > > > My configuration:
>> > > > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg)
>> > > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates)
>> > > > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig
>> gnupg-agent
>> > > >
>> > > > Please double check you environment for release procedure
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov 
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers.
>> > > > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it
>> while releasing 2.7:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and
>> found some issues:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton
>> Vinogradov.
>> > > > > Thank you, guys!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken.
>> > > > > I got following output:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ```
>> > > > > RPM build errors:
>> > > > >   bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov <
>> mr.wei...@gmail.com> - 2.6.0-1
>> > > > >   File not found:
>> /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt
>> > > > > + processTrap
>> > > > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories:  /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm'
>> > > > > Removing temporary work directories:  /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm
>> > > > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm
>> > > > > ```
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow.
>> > > > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > 

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4859: IGNITE-9726: GridCacheAbstractFailoverSelfTest ma...

[avplatonov]

GitHub user avplatonov opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4859

IGNITE-9726: GridCacheAbstractFailoverSelfTest may lock all suite on 
put/remove cache operations



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9726

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4859.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 #4859


commit d02093c29d106b4ff4900ed7013d819880992e92
Author: Alexey Platonov 
Date:   2018-09-27T14:46:22Z

fix suite lock due to missing of interruption in child threads

commit 40c3206752e2615603a85e0dbe56c2c0bc3266be
Author: Alexey Platonov 
Date:   2018-09-27T14:46:34Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into ignite-9726




---

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Igniters,

Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with
scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then:

1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7 fix
version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of them
are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what we
call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets
to 2.7 unless
you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This means
absolute ban for any new features.
2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this
time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features
which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4 weeks
for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote.

This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will
contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before
going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on
AI 2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during
stabilization phase.

In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October.

What do you think about it?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I ping assigners in all tickets hase been planned for 2.7 and work is
> started.
> I plan to move all tickets in 'Open' state to 2.8 on Moday, 24 September.
>
> Please, respond, if you have any objections.
>
>
> В Ср, 19/09/2018 в 16:02 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет:
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create
> > ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release
> > in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be
> > targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and
> > ignite-2.7 branches.
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > Vova, thank you for pointing this out.
> > >
> > > I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets.
> > > Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress.
> > > At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should
> have
> > > release scope prepared.
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 12:08, Vladimir Ozerov :
> > >
> > > > My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what
> means that
> > > > starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any
> commits
> > > > which doesn't relate to it.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vova,
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet.
> > > > > Correct me in case I missed this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release
> > > >
> > > > (everything
> > > > > installed and properly configured).
> > > > > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any
> > > > > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will
> be
> > > >
> > > > found
> > > > > before we announced codefreeze.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already
> real,
> > > >
> > > > we
> > > > > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we
> need to
> > > > > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to
> > > >
> > > > stable
> > > > > > branch in two weeks.
> > > > > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is
> perfectly
> > > > >
> > > > > valid
> > > > > > thing. This is how we made releases previously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Paul.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your
> changes?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are
> reviewed and
> > > > > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson <
> devilje...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >
> > > > nizhi...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, folks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will follow them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Igniters,

Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with
scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then:

1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7 fix
version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of them
are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what we
call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets to
2.7 unless you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This
means absolute ban for any new features.
2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this
time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features
which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4 weeks
for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote.

This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will
contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before
going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on AI
2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during
stabilization phase.

In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October.

What do you think about it?

Vladimir.


On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:

> Hello, Petr.
>
> My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error
> message if one use old version.
>
> В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> > I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest
> versions of Ubuntu.
> >
> >
> > However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release
> scripts do not honour latest GPG versions.
> > I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release
> script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just
> warn user about old version of GPG and exit?
> >
> >
> > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Petr.
> > >
> > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux.
> > > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2]
> > >
> > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment.
> > > Can you check fix on your environment?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665
> > >
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808
> > >
> > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> > > > Hi, Nikolay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and
> they are OK.
> > > > My configuration:
> > > > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg)
> > > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates)
> > > > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig
> gnupg-agent
> > > >
> > > > Please double check you environment for release procedure
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers.
> > > > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it
> while releasing 2.7:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes
> > > > >
> > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and
> found some issues:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton
> Vinogradov.
> > > > > Thank you, guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue:
> > > > >
> > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken.
> > > > > I got following output:
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > RPM build errors:
> > > > >   bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com> - 2.6.0-1
> > > > >   File not found:
> /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt
> > > > > + processTrap
> > > > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories:  /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm'
> > > > > Removing temporary work directories:  /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm
> > > > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow.
> > > > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> >

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9727) JDK9/10/11: ignite run script must be works with JDK9/10/11

[Taras Ledkov (JIRA)]

Taras Ledkov created IGNITE-9727:


 Summary: JDK9/10/11: ignite run script must be works with 
JDK9/10/11
 Key: IGNITE-9727
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9727
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Taras Ledkov
Assignee: Taras Ledkov


{{ignite.sh/bat}} and other scripts must be works properly with JDK 9/10/11 
versions.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4858: IGNITE-9687: update dependencies

[tledkov-gridgain]

GitHub user tledkov-gridgain opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4858

IGNITE-9687: update dependencies



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9687

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4858.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 #4858


commit f6d2a93447ef4b93e23a39e12b29ecb2a2d651ce
Author: tledkov-gridgain 
Date:   2018-09-27T13:39:06Z

IGNITE-9687: update dependencies




---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4857: IGNITE-9632 implementation

[SGrimstad]

GitHub user SGrimstad opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4857

IGNITE-9632 implementation



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite IGNITE-9632

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4857.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 #4857


commit 1a41a15edf6ad9f394fc09fc91052abbf7004d7f
Author: SGrimstad 
Date:   2018-09-27T14:23:28Z

IGNITE-9632 implementation




---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4856: IGNITE-9550 ready future exchange actions

[dgovorukhin]

GitHub user dgovorukhin opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4856

IGNITE-9550 ready future exchange actions



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9550-dg-2

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4856.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 #4856


commit 1e9e673dd3cde9c9a2d069965681f61d137847d6
Author: Dmitriy Govorukhin 
Date:   2018-09-27T14:20:20Z

IGNITE-9550 ready future exchange actions




---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9726) GridCacheAbstractFailoverSelfTest may lock all suite on put/remove cache operations

[Alexey Platonov (JIRA)]

Alexey Platonov created IGNITE-9726:
---

 Summary: GridCacheAbstractFailoverSelfTest may lock all suite on 
put/remove cache operations
 Key: IGNITE-9726
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9726
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Alexey Platonov
Assignee: Alexey Platonov






--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4797: IGNITE-9654

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4797


---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9725) Introduce affinity distribution prototype for equal cache group configurations

[Pavel Kovalenko (JIRA)]

Pavel Kovalenko created IGNITE-9725:
---

 Summary: Introduce affinity distribution prototype for equal cache 
group configurations
 Key: IGNITE-9725
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9725
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: New Feature
  Components: cache
Affects Versions: 2.0
Reporter: Pavel Kovalenko
 Fix For: 2.8


Currently, we perform affinity re-calculation for each of cache groups, even if 
configurations (CacheMode, number of backups, affinity function) are equal.
 
If two cache groups have similar affinity function and number of backups we can 
calculate affinity prototype for such groups once and re-use in every cache 
group.

This change will save time on affinity re-calculation if a cluster has a lot of 
cache groups with similar affinity function.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4855: IGNITE-9686: forward jvm parameter '-XX:+IgnoreUn...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4855


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4855: IGNITE-9686: forward jvm parameter '-XX:+IgnoreUn...

[tledkov-gridgain]

GitHub user tledkov-gridgain opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4855

IGNITE-9686: forward jvm parameter '-XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions' to 
child process for tests



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9686

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4855.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 #4855


commit a3ddc76fb45e7e8d8abb58bdd8483d33cd2695a2
Author: tledkov-gridgain 
Date:   2018-09-27T13:46:15Z

IGNITE-9686: forward jvm parameter '-XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions' to 
child process for tests




---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9724) MVCC SQL: Test CacheMvccSelectForUpdateQueryAbstractTest.testSelectForUpdateDistributed hangs sporadically.

[Andrew Mashenkov (JIRA)]

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9724:


 Summary: MVCC SQL: Test 
CacheMvccSelectForUpdateQueryAbstractTest.testSelectForUpdateDistributed hangs 
sporadically.
 Key: IGNITE-9724
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9724
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: mvcc, sql
Reporter: Andrew Mashenkov
 Fix For: 2.7
 Attachments: hanging.txt

CacheMvccSelectForUpdateQueryAbstractTest.testSelectForUpdateDistributed() 
hangs sporadically with PME.

Exchange thread is waiting for partition released
Query threads are waiting for TxTopologyVersionFuture.

 

 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4829: IGNITE-9686: JDK9: pass jdk9 specific JVM options...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4829


---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9723) Critial section should be wrapped correctly for GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager

[Maxim Muzafarov (JIRA)]

Maxim Muzafarov created IGNITE-9723:
---

 Summary: Critial section should be wrapped correctly for 
GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager
 Key: IGNITE-9723
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Maxim Muzafarov


`blockingSectionBegin`  should be used here

{code:java|title=GridCachePartitionExchangeManager:2687}

blockingSectionEnd();

try {
 resVer = exchFut.get(exchTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} finally {
 blockingSectionEnd();
}
 {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: TeamCity Helper's wiki page

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Nikolai,

sure, you are more than welcome to update AI wiki, not only about TC bot
but about all you need to understand during contributing to Ignite.

I've set needed permissions, please check.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 15:44, Nikolai Kulagin :

> Hi, Dmitrii
>
> I want to add information in wiki about new page on Ignite TeamCity Helper
> [1].  Could you please grant me these permissions? My id is zzzadruga.
>
> [1] https://mtcga.gridgain.com/comparison.html
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4814: IGNITE-9670: debug changes

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4814


---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9722) MVCC: Test CacheMvccTransactionTest.testMvccCoordinatorChangeSimple fails.

[Andrew Mashenkov (JIRA)]

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9722:


 Summary: MVCC: Test 
CacheMvccTransactionTest.testMvccCoordinatorChangeSimple fails.
 Key: IGNITE-9722
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9722
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: cache, mvcc
Reporter: Andrew Mashenkov
 Fix For: 2.7


The test make transactional putAll() and then check data with Scan query and 
getAll().

ScanQuery can miss some results on unstable topology which is expected as it 
doesn't lock topology.
But getAll() can unexpectedly return stale results.

To reproduce the issue, one can change read mode SCAN->GET (passed to 
checkAndGetAll() call) in checkPutGet() method. 

 

It looks like rebalance can overwrite local backup entries or remap is broken 
and we read local partition in moving state. Disabling fastLocGet in 
GridPartitionedGetFuture.map() resolves the issue.

 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Maxim,

Thanks for being attentive! It's definitely a typo. Could you please create
an issue?

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 16:00, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Folks,
>
> I've found in `GridCachePartitionExchangeManager:2684` [1] (master branch)
> exchange future wrapped
> with double `blockingSectionEnd` method. Is it correct? I just want to
> understand this change and
> how should I use this in the future.
>
> Should I file a new issue to fix this? I think here `blockingSectionBegin`
> method should be used.
>
> -
> blockingSectionEnd();
>
> try {
> resVer = exchFut.get(exchTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
> } finally {
> blockingSectionEnd();
> }
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/GridCachePartitionExchangeManager.java#L2684
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 22:47 Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey Gura, thank you for the answer!
> >
> > I agree that wrapping of 'init' method reduces the profit of watchdog
> > service in case of PME worker, but in other cases, we should wrap all
> > possible long sections on GridDhtPartitionExchangeFuture. For example
> > 'onCacheChangeRequest' method or
> > 'cctx.affinity().onCacheChangeRequest' inside because it may take
> > significant time (reproducer attached).
> >
> > I only want to point out a possible issue which may allow to end-user
> > halt the Ignite cluster accidentally.
> >
> > I'm sure that PME experts know how to fix this issue properly.
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:28 PM Andrey Gura  wrote:
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > Exchange worker is strongly tied with
> > > GridDhtPartitionExchangeFuture#init and it is ok. Exchange worker also
> > > shouldn't be blocked for long time but in reality it happens.It also
> > > means that your change doesn't make sense.
> > >
> > > What actually make sense it is identification of places which
> > > intentionally blocking. May be some places/actions should be braced by
> > > blocking guards.
> > >
> > > If you have failing tests please make sure that your failureHandler is
> > > NoOpFailureHandler or any other handler with ignoreFailureTypes =
> > > [CRITICAL_WORKER_BLOCKED].
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Igniters!
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for this important improvement!
> > > >
> > > > I've looked through implementation and noticed that
> > > > GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture#init has not been wrapped in blocked
> > > > section. This means it easy to halt the node in case of longrunning
> > > > actions during PME, for example when we create a cache with
> > > > StoreFactrory which connect to 3rd party DB.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that it is the right behavior.
> > > >
> > > > I filled the issue [1] and prepared the PR [2] with reproducer and
> > possible fix.
> > > >
> > > > Andrey, could you please look at and confirm that it makes sense?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9710
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4845
> > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:46 PM Andrey Kuznetsov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've created the ticket [1] with short description of the
> > functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9679
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 17:46, Denis Magda :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey K. and G.,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, do we have a documentation ticket created? Prachi
> (copied)
> > can help
> > > > > > with the documentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM Andrey Gura 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > finally your change is merged to master branch. Congratulations
> > and
> > > > > > > thank you very much! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that the next step is feature that will allow signal
> > about
> > > > > > > blocked threads to the monitoring tools via MXBean.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope you will continue development of this feature and
> provide
> > your
> > > > > > > vision in new JIRA issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:54 PM Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stku...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David, Maxim!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for you ideas. Unfortunately, I can't adopt all
> > of them
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > now: the scope is much broader than the scope of the change I
> > > > > > implement.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > have had a talk to a group of Ignite commiters, and we agreed
> > to
> > > > > > complete
> > > > > > > > the change as follows.
> > > > > > > > - Blocking instructions in system-critical which may
> resonably
> > last
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > should be explicitly excluded from the monitoring.
> > > > > > > 

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4826: IGNITE-8146: JDK9: fix gathering class loader's U...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4826


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4854: IGNITE-9561 Parallelize affinity calculation and ...

[Jokser]

GitHub user Jokser opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4854

IGNITE-9561 Parallelize affinity calculation and partitions assignment 
during PME



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9561

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4854.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 #4854


commit 2e8a92734a45b3c6861c98e04d4a2aa4dee09551
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-27T12:59:31Z

IGNITE-9561 Parallelize affinity initialization and recalculation, 
partitions validation and assignment.




---

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Folks,

I've found in `GridCachePartitionExchangeManager:2684` [1] (master branch)
exchange future wrapped
with double `blockingSectionEnd` method. Is it correct? I just want to
understand this change and
how should I use this in the future.

Should I file a new issue to fix this? I think here `blockingSectionBegin`
method should be used.

-
blockingSectionEnd();

try {
resVer = exchFut.get(exchTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} finally {
blockingSectionEnd();
}


[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/GridCachePartitionExchangeManager.java#L2684

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 22:47 Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:

> Andrey Gura, thank you for the answer!
>
> I agree that wrapping of 'init' method reduces the profit of watchdog
> service in case of PME worker, but in other cases, we should wrap all
> possible long sections on GridDhtPartitionExchangeFuture. For example
> 'onCacheChangeRequest' method or
> 'cctx.affinity().onCacheChangeRequest' inside because it may take
> significant time (reproducer attached).
>
> I only want to point out a possible issue which may allow to end-user
> halt the Ignite cluster accidentally.
>
> I'm sure that PME experts know how to fix this issue properly.
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:28 PM Andrey Gura  wrote:
> >
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > Exchange worker is strongly tied with
> > GridDhtPartitionExchangeFuture#init and it is ok. Exchange worker also
> > shouldn't be blocked for long time but in reality it happens.It also
> > means that your change doesn't make sense.
> >
> > What actually make sense it is identification of places which
> > intentionally blocking. May be some places/actions should be braced by
> > blocking guards.
> >
> > If you have failing tests please make sure that your failureHandler is
> > NoOpFailureHandler or any other handler with ignoreFailureTypes =
> > [CRITICAL_WORKER_BLOCKED].
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Igniters!
> > >
> > > Thank you for this important improvement!
> > >
> > > I've looked through implementation and noticed that
> > > GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture#init has not been wrapped in blocked
> > > section. This means it easy to halt the node in case of longrunning
> > > actions during PME, for example when we create a cache with
> > > StoreFactrory which connect to 3rd party DB.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that it is the right behavior.
> > >
> > > I filled the issue [1] and prepared the PR [2] with reproducer and
> possible fix.
> > >
> > > Andrey, could you please look at and confirm that it makes sense?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9710
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4845
> > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:46 PM Andrey Kuznetsov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > I've created the ticket [1] with short description of the
> functionality.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9679
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 17:46, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey K. and G.,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, do we have a documentation ticket created? Prachi (copied)
> can help
> > > > > with the documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM Andrey Gura 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > finally your change is merged to master branch. Congratulations
> and
> > > > > > thank you very much! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the next step is feature that will allow signal
> about
> > > > > > blocked threads to the monitoring tools via MXBean.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope you will continue development of this feature and provide
> your
> > > > > > vision in new JIRA issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:54 PM Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stku...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David, Maxim!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot for you ideas. Unfortunately, I can't adopt all
> of them
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > now: the scope is much broader than the scope of the change I
> > > > > implement.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > have had a talk to a group of Ignite commiters, and we agreed
> to
> > > > > complete
> > > > > > > the change as follows.
> > > > > > > - Blocking instructions in system-critical which may resonably
> last
> > > > > long
> > > > > > > should be explicitly excluded from the monitoring.
> > > > > > > - Failure handlers should have a setting to suppress some
> failures on
> > > > > > > per-failure-type basis.
> > > > > > > According to this I have updated the implementation: [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4089
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн, 10 сент. 2018 г. в 22:35, David Harvey <
> syssoft...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I've done this before,I've needed to find the oldest
> 

Re: TeamCity Helper's wiki page

[Nikolai Kulagin]

Hi, Dmitrii

I want to add information in wiki about new page on Ignite TeamCity Helper
[1].  Could you please grant me these permissions? My id is zzzadruga. 

[1] https://mtcga.gridgain.com/comparison.html



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

[GitHub] SomeFire opened a new pull request #22: IGNITE-9697 [TC Bot] Autocomplete branch for TC field

[GitBox]

SomeFire opened a new pull request #22: IGNITE-9697 [TC Bot] Autocomplete 
branch for TC field
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-teamcity-bot/pull/22
 
 
   


This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4853: IGNITE-9721 NPE in IgniteAuthenticationProcessor$...

[oignatenko]

GitHub user oignatenko opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4853

IGNITE-9721 NPE in 
IgniteAuthenticationProcessor$RefreshUsersStorageWorker.body



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9721

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4853.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 #4853


commit 1eeca908a8076a8317947dac8a46845964d1d7ea
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-23T13:13:28Z

IGNITE-9348 ML examples improvements
- wip (logging improved)
-- verified with diffs overview, executing the examples and studying 
execution logs

commit e50b89c392568ba9b93935c4fa6c7f7f93f5ec6f
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-23T14:45:57Z

Revert "IGNITE-9348 ML examples improvements"

This reverts commit 1eeca908a8076a8317947dac8a46845964d1d7ea.

commit 474024b4c5bbdb3c0a4ed2f0a66238c8054c6674
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-23T14:57:34Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 9642b233b5701bdad47ebea163079160227c582a
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-28T14:01:11Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 7fc16d013ab725d2ff2e1a1b042c983f11d0c4d4
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-28T15:13:02Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit d2caba67b156674f051f50faebeafe0871bf0914
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-29T13:14:07Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 16775dff51d71ea68b4a3dea98be552130c493ed
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T09:00:56Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit aedb59929974fe205b949225c1a338c68c60cfc8
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T09:42:38Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 39c6482fcdca506aa33011ed21c98060b4a8c68b
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T11:28:05Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 33b32a2760a6559c78283b927e3191180d8ed9e1
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T12:31:16Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 9531028ddd1aef9e95f7e8c8b528086739bbb1b0
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T14:06:34Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 28f22c6e2fffcb82717ba5da7be2cfd39715c4e3
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-30T16:41:51Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit aacac88db519187413b0fc5ff9d0e55b8f8cff22
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-31T10:12:32Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 897f920dde46022849b13f9fb86dba8e54119a56
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-31T13:57:14Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 114c79e54c1b316006ccc3ff22d20d902f9313df
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-08-31T17:39:16Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit fd6b659bb8be1992618ce4ce91f568a0988b3afa
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-02T06:11:42Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 6ae6d1d3cf9743d8d466be0330511ddc8589e944
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-03T10:27:35Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit e8b27dbd3d0c1cbdb7a7659175f5c7bb447482bf
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-04T09:49:44Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 622c82efdd0aa182fadea6b7ffa5d4615521a3f5
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-05T10:50:28Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit fb844fe3751e2e8ae87e6b8030b0e4bd659df9c2
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-05T11:45:58Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 480ed78869277d7e32f725ab71bec9621f1ac03a
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-06T07:52:55Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit c99762498f617c0e98ea3062a43c0b30092166ef
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-06T14:45:04Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 2e17175225c72f747d370b5fee96f8be69d6d2cb
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-06T17:33:54Z

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/apache/ignite into master-ml

commit 9ebcd9a2fe5966b0bf42a95484395867c15d863f
Author: Oleg Ignatenko 
Date:   2018-09-07T13:38:51Z

Merge branch 'master' 

Re: Wrong off-heap size is reported for a node

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Fixed, now the fix is in the ignite-2.7 branch.

ср, 26 сент. 2018 г. в 23:18, Dmitriy Pavlov :

> Oops, my fault. It seems I forgot to cherry-pick to 2.7, but I resolved
> ticket with 2.7 assigned.
>
> I will fix it tomorrow.
>
> ср, 26 сент. 2018 г. в 21:52, Denis Magda :
>
>> Thanks, Pavel and the rest of the Igniters involved.
>>
>> That simple usability improvement is a big deal for those who use Ignite
>> in
>> production.
>>
>> Are we getting it in 2.7?
>>
>> --
>> Denis
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:11 AM Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Igniters,
>> >
>> > Thanks to everyone, who has participated in this discussion and shared
>> > their view and ideas.
>> >
>> > I've merged fix of changes related to logging only. Fixing of cluster
>> > metrics can be done in a separate ticket/discussion.
>> >
>> > Pavel, thank you for your contribution and for answering my questions.
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>> > пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 18:52, Pavel Pereslegin :
>> >
>> > > Andrei,
>> > > I totally agree with you and I think that "ClusterMetrics" should also
>> > > be fixed, I'm just not sure that we should include this change in the
>> > > same ticket.
>> > > пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 18:43, aealexsandrov > >:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > OK, the user can use it to calculate the off-heap. But I think that
>> the
>> > > > reason for your changes to fix the calculation of the nonHeap used
>> in
>> > > Ignite
>> > > > now. For example now REST return "-1" for nonHeapMemoryMaximum. I
>> think
>> > > that
>> > > > it can't be used somehow. So REST possible should be updated as you
>> did
>> > > for
>> > > > log metrics and it will require for the same logic.
>> > > >
>> > > > BR,
>> > > > Andrei
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4852: IGNITE-5795 Binary metadata is registered during ...

[akalash]

GitHub user akalash opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4852

IGNITE-5795 Binary metadata is registered during start of cache



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-5795-2

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4852.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 #4852


commit 1a54bc1bb721626441ff2d19c988660bf913ec67
Author: Anton Kalashnikov 
Date:   2018-09-27T12:19:33Z

IGNITE-5795 Binary metadata is registered during start of cache




---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9721) NPE in IgniteAuthenticationProcessor$RefreshUsersStorageWorker.body

[Oleg Ignatenko (JIRA)]

Oleg Ignatenko created IGNITE-9721:
--

 Summary: NPE in 
IgniteAuthenticationProcessor$RefreshUsersStorageWorker.body
 Key: IGNITE-9721
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9721
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Oleg Ignatenko


Tests at Teamcity sometimes fail with NPE in {{IgniteAuthenticationProcessor}}.

Example of failure (in test 
{{AuthenticationProcessorNodeRestartTest.test1kUsersNodeRestartServer}}) is 
[here|https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1945459=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_Cache7],
 and stacktrace looks as follows:
{noformat}[2018-09-26 
07:06:36,732][ERROR][auth-#6589%authentication.AuthenticationProcessorNodeRestartTest0%][IgniteAuthenticationProcessor]
 Runtime error caught during grid runnable execution: GridWorker 
[name=refresh-store, 
igniteInstanceName=authentication.AuthenticationProcessorNodeRestartTest0, 
finished=false, heartbeatTs=1537945595104, hashCode=733597684, 
interrupted=true, 
runner=auth-#6589%authentication.AuthenticationProcessorNodeRestartTest0%]
  java.lang.NullPointerException
  at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.authentication.IgniteAuthenticationProcessor$RefreshUsersStorageWorker.body(IgniteAuthenticationProcessor.java:1346)
  at 
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
  at 
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)
  at 
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)
  at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748){noformat}

This might be either coding error (missing null check) or data race.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4851: Ig 7196 changes without master PME optimizations

[Mmuzaf]

GitHub user Mmuzaf opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4851

Ig 7196 changes without master PME optimizations



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite ig-7196-prev

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4851.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 #4851


commit fc0ba2d389fa021055413b9d6596859d3ea838df
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-08-24T14:27:26Z

IGNITE-7196: initial commit

commit 07d8c0296476656131ffcf929c6eeaeaec1a3a7f
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-08-31T08:11:02Z

Merge branch 'master' into ignite-7196

# Conflicts:
#   
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/persistence/GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java
#   
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/persistence/IgniteCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java

commit b8935632089b6a77fa533089508a062c6933161b
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-08-31T08:18:20Z

IGNITE-7196: move down init listener

commit 97bde70641d02621925e85bf46defc6c0c213423
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-08-31T08:21:20Z

IGNITE-7196: revert down init listener

commit e9c84f2a9f5ae5f2fe4c9e2275addc6042a635e8
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-03T16:47:46Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP restore binary on first activate

commit a8e6a59bd680c5e861159c32788022e9c000f019
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-03T20:24:09Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP remove readAndRestore from PME

commit 71b5efb046bbe13632ec938a06683d6a2c398b4e
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-03T20:30:17Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP remove readAndRestore from PME 2

commit 9f982cd05ad608317c183e9f5a4008a178dac31a
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T09:41:32Z

Merge branch 'master' into ignite-7196

# Conflicts:
#   
modules/indexing/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/persistence/db/wal/IgniteWalRecoveryTest`.java

commit 161b48d94a574007b37a070e731e963ded6bf431
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T09:46:45Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP remove unused imports

commit 1f286be9e80a484a62c6c355e4141afef55923a6
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T16:18:37Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP make lastRestored flag checkable

commit 2b6b17c3a8e9b254fe9337dc76b51c6ca02dd617
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T16:25:38Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP lastRestored 2

commit 323b0e83af00878afd5286dcf6973973b8188844
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T19:17:42Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP make lastRestored flag checkable 2

commit 087e63a5999a8cd4b06d6ee6085d4d1db837576d
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T19:56:12Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP make lastRestored flag checkable 3

commit 3b40a2ef0aef628af088f3a1a8ab0a9a11b3be4b
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-04T21:21:53Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP make lastRestored flag checkable 4

commit 6f9b44ed9e1c523c266167ff9f03a6e680c2d9fa
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T09:46:42Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP minor changes

commit bb86b9144c9e863ad86af27823046f992503d00e
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T12:14:51Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 1

commit 87b4f325c5dd8a93f6c4fc1dd21d50c9c3752684
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T13:14:58Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 2

commit 65f83f68f5b5ca1923bcc5a7c4841ca2455cb902
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T14:23:24Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 3

commit 166fd04c3bd5dfdd39c6118c21f0ae39170842eb
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T15:43:35Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 4

commit b60a68cb1275b8c1074ae3d22c4c7f7967c883b6
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T16:32:48Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 5

commit a60fdd67145ee5d6f4bbac81de9e6b1d9bbab6b1
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T16:44:03Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 6

commit 3cf0911f646c4100e0a1654e3dec3c0f4952abf5
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T17:21:02Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 7

commit 65ed786c9d9bf83ab56f60349ac8eaba8099807b
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T18:28:59Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP without activate#deactivate 8

commit 53f81a8ce75785c9b6badf67a93261e8eae2947a
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-05T18:32:39Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP minor code changes

commit 61633dc9dd0980070b5f1c9ec5a9624b99b32b69
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-06T17:56:13Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP suspend#resume WAL logging 1

commit 3772cbdcfe9edd90d76d5cb841c4c00123077eac
Author: Maxim Muzafarov 
Date:   2018-09-07T17:56:07Z

IGNITE-7196: WIP deactivate wal

commit 5d7affd2539f2b1fb4ab63c93a7c3fba2104eb2b
Author: Maxim 

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9720) Initialize partition free lists lazily

[Alexey Goncharuk (JIRA)]

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-9720:


 Summary: Initialize partition free lists lazily
 Key: IGNITE-9720
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9720
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
Reporter: Alexey Goncharuk


When persistence is enabled, partition free lists metadata may take quite a lot 
of pages.
This results in a very long start time because 
{{GridCacheOffheapManager.GridCacheDataStore#init0}} will read all metadata for 
free list in each partition on exchange start (this is done in the 
{{CacheFreeListImpl}} constructor)
We should only read required information on exchange and defer actual free list 
initialization to the first access.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9719) Extra rebalanceThreadPoolSize check on client node.

[Stanilovsky Evgeny (JIRA)]

Stanilovsky Evgeny created IGNITE-9719:
--

 Summary: Extra rebalanceThreadPoolSize check on client node.
 Key: IGNITE-9719
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9719
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: clients
Affects Versions: 2.6
Reporter: Stanilovsky Evgeny
 Fix For: 2.8


No need to check rebalance thread pool size on client side in 
IgniteKernal#ackRebalanceConfiguration method.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4850: IGNITE-9661 Optimize partitions validation

[Jokser]

GitHub user Jokser opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4850

IGNITE-9661 Optimize partitions validation

logN removed from complexity.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9661

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4850.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 #4850


commit 4cd2998a11724ab9bb2d6d19c89008417036c6da
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-26T13:48:30Z

IGNITE-9661 Test for starting caches.

commit c41ee576b8e14d72e57dd60e4fb7248e1edcec44
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-26T13:48:46Z

IGNITE-9661 Partitions validator optimizations.

commit aa4c37cc2708de03317e4900a5dedeeef0a99beb
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-27T10:47:23Z

IGNITE-9661 Removed test

commit 6ccea1067a62430deb8deec93beb0909222cf9be
Author: Pavel Kovalenko 
Date:   2018-09-27T11:18:40Z

Merge branch 'master' into ignite-9661




---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4777: IGNITE-9624: Refine CacheAtomicityMode.TRANSACTIO...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4777


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4813: IGNITE-9612 Improve checkpoint mark phase speed.

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4813


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4849: IGNITE-9711: [ML] Remove IgniteThread wrapper fro...

[YuriBabak]

GitHub user YuriBabak opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4849

IGNITE-9711: [ML] Remove IgniteThread wrapper from ml examples

Fixed

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/YuriBabak/ignite ignite-9711

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4849.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 #4849


commit 7823118360be1ba46991a3b042c5045546d7f43e
Author: YuriBabak 
Date:   2018-09-27T09:57:06Z

IGNITE-9711: [ML] Remove IgniteThread wrapper from ml examples

done




---

Re: [MTCGA]: new failures in builds [1848300] needs to be handled

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi,

I think we can ignore the failure. This test is reported as a failure
because of strange notification of init method as a standalone test.

Actually, initialization is failed as flaky.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 8:31, :

> Hi Igniters,
>
>  I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
> welcomed to help.
>
>  If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were
> a volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and
> you may no longer be able to finalize your contribution.
>  Could you respond to this email and indicate if you wish to continue and
> fix test failures or step down and some committer may revert you commit.
>
>  *Recently contributed test failed in master
> org.apache.ignite.testsuites.IgniteIgfsLinuxAndMacOSTestSuite.initializationError
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=-4034437294452110435=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails
>  Changes may lead to failure were done by
>  - verbalab
> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=831346=false
>  - verbalab
> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=831344=false
>  - dmitriyff
> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=831341=false
>  - verbalab
> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=831339=false
>
>  - Here's a reminder of what contributors were agreed to do
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
>  - Should you have any questions please contact
> dev@ignite.apache.org
>
> Best Regards,
> Apache Ignite TeamCity Bot
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-teamcity-bot
> Notification generated at 08:31:40 27-09-2018
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4848: IGNITE-9718: Fix typo in Random Forest JavaDoc

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4848


---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4848: IGNITE-9718: Fix typo in Random Forest JavaDoc

[zaleslaw]

GitHub user zaleslaw opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4848

IGNITE-9718: Fix typo in Random Forest JavaDoc



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9718

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4848.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 #4848


commit efe78e1d260115d015c03c7dc0d373d1e3858a07
Author: Zinoviev Alexey 
Date:   2018-09-27T09:28:06Z

Fix typo in JavaDoc




---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4847: IGNITE-9706: Update ignite-tensorflow to support ...

[dmitrievanthony]

GitHub user dmitrievanthony opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4847

IGNITE-9706: Update ignite-tensorflow to support TensorFlow standalone 
client mode

TF_CONFIG variable, make user script to use TF_CLUSTER variable.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9706

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4847.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 #4847


commit df6ee625ad571e3cdcec38bec2314fa09b2f2fa3
Author: Anton Dmitriev 
Date:   2018-09-26T15:13:53Z

IGNITE-9706: Make workers use run_standard_tensorflow_server and
TF_CONFIG variable, make user script to use TF_CLUSTER variable.




---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9718) [ML] Incorrect JavaDoc in RandomForest

[Aleksey Zinoviev (JIRA)]

Aleksey Zinoviev created IGNITE-9718:


 Summary: [ML] Incorrect JavaDoc in RandomForest
 Key: IGNITE-9718
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9718
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: ml
Affects Versions: 2.7
Reporter: Aleksey Zinoviev
Assignee: Aleksey Zinoviev
 Fix For: 2.7


ignite/modules/ml/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ml/tree/randomforest/RandomForestTrainer.java:141:
 warning - @param argument "cntOfTrees" is not a parameter name.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9717) [ML] Add setters methods to Logistic Regression and fix examples/tests

[Aleksey Zinoviev (JIRA)]

Aleksey Zinoviev created IGNITE-9717:


 Summary: [ML] Add setters methods to Logistic Regression and fix 
examples/tests
 Key: IGNITE-9717
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9717
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: ml
Affects Versions: 2.7
Reporter: Aleksey Zinoviev
Assignee: Aleksey Zinoviev
 Fix For: 2.7


Logistic Regression and Multilayered Perceptron can not be used in Pipeline due 
to unexisting setter methods .withFieldName.

Also examples and tests shoould be fixed



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9716) Document partition distribution and reset lost partitions commands of control script

[Alexey Goncharuk (JIRA)]

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-9716:


 Summary: Document partition distribution and reset lost partitions 
commands of control script
 Key: IGNITE-9716
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9716
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 2.7
Reporter: Alexey Goncharuk
 Fix For: 2.7






--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9715) Document WAL compression level

[Alexey Goncharuk (JIRA)]

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-9715:


 Summary: Document WAL compression level
 Key: IGNITE-9715
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9715
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
  Components: documentation
Affects Versions: 2.7
Reporter: Alexey Goncharuk
 Fix For: 2.7


In 2.7 we added an ability to set WAL compression level, this ability should be 
documented.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4763: Ignite 9599 mx bean

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4763


---

[GitHub] ignite-release pull request #3: IGNITE-7251 Remove term "fabric" from Ignite...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/3


---

[GitHub] ignite-release pull request #3: IGNITE-7251 Remove term "fabric" from Ignite...

[vveider]

GitHub user vveider opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/3

IGNITE-7251 Remove term "fabric" from Ignite deliverables

 * modified scripts to comply with "fabric" removal

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/vveider/ignite-release ignite-7251

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/3.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 #3


commit cd85ac1fe92ae0381d9f4d4e3d2132d4360d6caa
Author: Ivanov Petr 
Date:   2018-09-27T08:21:58Z

IGNITE-7251 Remove term "fabric" from Ignite deliverables
 * modified scripts to comply with "fabric" removal




---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4669: IGNITE-7855: Supported streaming mode in ODBC

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4669


---

[GitHub] zzzadruga commented on a change in pull request #20: Ignite 9645

[GitBox]

zzzadruga commented on a change in pull request #20: Ignite 9645
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-teamcity-bot/pull/20#discussion_r220834879
 
 

 ##
 File path: 
ignite-tc-helper-web/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/ci/web/rest/build/GetBuildTestFailures.java
 ##
 @@ -159,51 +160,24 @@ public TestFailuresSummary getBuildTestFails(
 
 @GET
 @Path("history")
-public List getBuildsHistory(
+public BuildsHistory getBuildsHistory(
 @Nullable @QueryParam("server") String server,
 @Nullable @QueryParam("buildType") String buildType,
 @Nullable @QueryParam("branch") String branch,
 @Nullable @QueryParam("sinceDate") String sinceDate,
 @Nullable @QueryParam("untilDate") String untilDate)
 throws ServiceUnauthorizedException, ParseException {
-DateFormat dateFormat = new SimpleDateFormat("ddMMHHmmss");
+BuildsHistory buildsHistory = new BuildsHistory.Builder()
+.branch(branch)
+.server(server)
+.buildType(buildType)
+.sinceDate(sinceDate)
+.untilDate(untilDate)
+.build();
 
-String srvId = isNullOrEmpty(server) ? "apache" : server;
-String buildTypeId = isNullOrEmpty(buildType) ? 
"IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll" : buildType;
-String branchName = isNullOrEmpty(branch) ? "refs/heads/master" : 
branch;
-Date sinceDateFilter = isNullOrEmpty(sinceDate) ? null : 
dateFormat.parse(sinceDate);
-Date untilDateFilter = isNullOrEmpty(untilDate) ? null : 
dateFormat.parse(untilDate);
-
-final BackgroundUpdater updater = 
CtxListener.getBackgroundUpdater(context);
-
-final ITcHelper tcHelper = CtxListener.getTcHelper(context);
-
-final ICredentialsProv prov = ICredentialsProv.get(req);
-
-try (IAnalyticsEnabledTeamcity teamcity = tcHelper.server(srvId, 
prov)) {
+buildsHistory.initialize(ICredentialsProv.get(req), context);
 
-int[] finishedBuilds = 
teamcity.getBuildNumbersFromHistory(buildTypeId, branchName, sinceDateFilter, 
untilDateFilter);
-
-List buildsStatistics = new ArrayList<>();
-
-for (int i = 0; i < finishedBuilds.length; i++) {
-int buildId = finishedBuilds[i];
-
-FullQueryParams param = new FullQueryParams();
-param.setBuildId(buildId);
-param.setBranch(branchName);
-param.setServerId(srvId);
-
-BuildStatisticsSummary buildsStatistic = updater.get(
-BUILDS_STATISTICS_SUMMARY_CACHE_NAME, prov, param,
-(k) -> getBuildStatisticsSummaryNoCache(srvId, buildId), 
false);
-
-if (!buildsStatistic.isFakeStub)
-buildsStatistics.add(buildsStatistic);
-}
-
-return buildsStatistics;
-}
+return buildsHistory;
 }
 
 private BuildStatisticsSummary getBuildStatisticsSummaryNoCache(String 
server, int buildId) {
 
 Review comment:
   Method is never used


This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9714) Document ODBC streaming mode

[Vladimir Ozerov (JIRA)]

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-9714:
---

 Summary: Document ODBC streaming mode
 Key: IGNITE-9714
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9714
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Task
  Components: documentation
Reporter: Artem Budnikov
 Fix For: 2.7


Need to document ODBC streaming mode introduced in IGNITE-7855.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4787: IGNITE-9639 Flaky failure of SqlSystemViewsSelfTe...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4787


---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9713) [ML] Fix JavaDocs in ML Prerpocessing package

[Aleksey Zinoviev (JIRA)]

Aleksey Zinoviev created IGNITE-9713:


 Summary: [ML] Fix JavaDocs in ML Prerpocessing package
 Key: IGNITE-9713
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9713
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: ml
Affects Versions: 2.7
Reporter: Aleksey Zinoviev
Assignee: Aleksey Zinoviev
 Fix For: 2.7


JavaDocs are incorrect in StringEncoder Preprocessor, Encoder Trainer, 
Binarization.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)