Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3

[Nikita Ivanov]

+1
--
Nikita Ivanov

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 6:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko
 wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> complicate the ticket management.
>
> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>
> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
>
> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
>
> -Val

[DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Igniters,

I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
complicate the ticket management.

For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
likely to be lost. We need a better separation.

All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.

I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.

Any thoughts or objections?

-Val

Re: [DISCUSS] IEP-71 Public API for secondary index search

[Maksim Timonin]

Hi!

The patch merged (IndexQuery with required index name). A lot of thanks to
Andrew Mashenkov, Taras Ledkov and Alex Plekhanov for their time and
reviews.

By the way, I'd like to up the discussion about the optionality of the
indexName param for creating IndexQuery. I believe that it's a useful
feature. My arguments are:
1. Ignite provides users the possibility to create an index without name
setting (with the QuerySqlField annotation, with QueryIndex for
QueryEntity). Then Ignite should provide the possibility to query indexes
the same way it uses for creating them.

2. Naming of the index isn't transparent:
- creating index name is hidden in internal packages: QueryUtils#indexName.
- the QuerySqlField annotation provides an opportunity to create an index
(set `index = true`), but it doesn't set name to index. Users will have to
replace QuerySqlField(index=true) with QuerySqlField(orderedGroups=) to set
the index name. This is a little bit misleading to use group index to set
naming for a single field index.

3. There is an example of using such API in other databases: MongoDB
doesn't require to specify an index name [1], it searches it by fields
only. Note, MongoDB doesn't require strict fields order for querying
indexes, but requires it for sorting [2].

When defining an index we enforce order of fields. QueryIndex uses
LinkedHashMap for that, QuerySqlField.Group uses the order param. But I
agree that it can be very inconvenient to fill IndexQuery with criteria in
the same order. Also cases when users support both indexes (A, B) and (B,
A) are pretty rare, and in this specific case one should set the index name
in any case to avoid misleading results. Also let's take in consideration
that there is already a case with MongoDB that doesn't restrict field
order.

So, I propose:
1. Allow create IndexQuery with list of criteria only, without specifying
name.
2. In this case iterate over all indexes created for specified value type,
and use the first that matches all criteria fields.


If there are no objections I'll prepare a patch for that. Igniters, WDYT?



[1] https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/indexes/
[2]
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/sort-results-with-indexes/#sort-on-multiple-fields



On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:52 PM Maksim Timonin 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> It's a PR re-review request.
>
> I've reworked PR [1]. The major changes are:
> 1. indexName is a required param for building IndexQuery.
> 2. the order of criteria fields doesn't make sense - now it checks only
> that criteria is a prefix for index fields.
> 3. IndexQuery can accept a value type (only value class was before).
> Thanks a lot to Taras Ledkov for this comment, I missed this.
> 4. Also refactored code in places where Andrey Mashenkov put his comments.
>
> Also created a separate ticket [2] for building IndexQuery from a list of
> criteria fields only.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9118
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15391
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:49 AM Maksim Timonin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thanks all for your comments!
>>
>> 1. I'm OK on the first step to make the indexName param required and not
>> check fields order for this case. So, I'll remove code with search index by
>> fields from current PR.
>>
>> 2. But I propose to create a ticket for possible improvement - IndexQuery
>> should be created with a list of fields only.
>> I believe that it's a useful feature. My main argument is still the same:
>> - Ignite provides to users the possibility to create an index without
>> name setting. Then Ignite should provide the possibility to query them.
>> - There is an example of using such API in other databases: as Ivan
>> mentioned, MongoDB doesn't require to specify an index name [1], it
>> searches it by fields only. Note, MongoDB doesn't require strict fields
>> order for querying indexes, but requires it for sorting [2].
>>
>> I don't see reasons not to provide a similar API for our users. Agree,
>> that order of fields is under discussion.
>>
>> So, let's postpone step 2, and discuss it later again, as currently it is
>> a blocker for Index API. If somebody sees strong arguments against this
>> proposal and my arguments, please write them.
>>
>> [1] https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/indexes/
>> [2]
>> https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/sort-results-with-indexes/#sort-on-multiple-fields
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:00 PM Courtney Robinson <
>> courtney.robin...@hypi.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Prefer 1 from Teras' response. Specifying index name is preferred.
>>> I've seen customers do idx(A,B) and idx(B,A) where semantics change
>>> between
>>> the two.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Courtney Robinson
>>> Founder and CEO, Hypi
>>> Tel: ++44 208 123 2413 (GMT+0) 
>>>
>>> 
>>> https://hypi.io
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 4:28 PM Taras Ledkov 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > My proposal:
>>> > 1. Don't search index by criteria, specify the 

Re: Request for new TC suite

[Maksim Timonin]

FYI, the IndexQuery PR merged. New TC suite [1] now is part of RunAll.

[1]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/IgniteTests24Java8_IndexQueryApi

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:29 PM Maksim Timonin 
wrote:

> It has not to be before merge. After merge we will add it to RunAll.
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually,  Index Query API suite is not part of RunAll.
>> Let's fix this.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:12 PM Maksim Timonin 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, Petr!
>> >
>> > I closed the ticket, Anton Vinogradov (thanks!) helped me and created
>> the
>> > suite fast. It successfully ran.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/IgniteTests24Java8_IndexQuery?mode=branches
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:13 PM Maksim Timonin > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, Petr!
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the response. I created a ticket [1] and assigned it to
>> you.
>> > > Please have a look at it. If you have any questions please let me
>> know.
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15509
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:05 PM Petr Ivanov 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi, Maksim.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> File a ticket please and I will see it through.
>> > >>
>> > >> > On 14 Sep 2021, at 17:24, Maksim Timonin 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Hi, Igniters!
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This is a request for a new TC suite. This PR [1] introduces new
>> > >> > functionality (IndexQuery API). I've prepared a suite [1] with
>> tests
>> > >> > related to this API. I'd like to have an opportunity to run those
>> > tests
>> > >> in
>> > >> > a separate TC suite. Currently for my PR only, and after merge it
>> > >> should be
>> > >> > enabled for the master branch.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > How can I do this?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thanks!
>> > >> >
>> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9118
>> > >> > [2] Path is
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> ./modules/indexing/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/cache/query/IndexQueryTestSuite.java
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>>
>

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release pyignite 0.5.2-rc0

[Ivan Daschinsky]

I've done, thank you

пт, 17 сент. 2021 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Ivan,
>
> I've found that the versions below have 'unreleased' status in the
> Apache JIRA. Can you please share a release date for each version and
> I'll mark them as 'released'?
>
> python-0.5.2
> python-0.5.1
> python-0.5.0
>
> On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:44, Ivan Daschinsky 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Igniters!
> >
> > Release pyignite-0.5.2-rc0 has been accepted
> >
> > The votes received:
> > 3 "+1" binding votes
> > 3 "+1" votes
> >
> > There is neither "+0" nor "-1"
> >
> > Here the votes received:
> > - +1 Pavel Tupitsyn (binding)
> > - +1 Nickolay Izhikov (binding)
> > - +1 Maxim Muzafarov (binding)
> > - +1 Ilya Shishkov
> > - +1 Aleksandr Nikolaev
> > - +1 Ivan Daschinsky
> >
> >
> > New release will be announced soon
>


-- 
Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release pyignite 0.5.2-rc0

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ivan,

I've found that the versions below have 'unreleased' status in the
Apache JIRA. Can you please share a release date for each version and
I'll mark them as 'released'?

python-0.5.2
python-0.5.1
python-0.5.0

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:44, Ivan Daschinsky  wrote:
>
> Hello, Igniters!
>
> Release pyignite-0.5.2-rc0 has been accepted
>
> The votes received:
> 3 "+1" binding votes
> 3 "+1" votes
>
> There is neither "+0" nor "-1"
>
> Here the votes received:
> - +1 Pavel Tupitsyn (binding)
> - +1 Nickolay Izhikov (binding)
> - +1 Maxim Muzafarov (binding)
> - +1 Ilya Shishkov
> - +1 Aleksandr Nikolaev
> - +1 Ivan Daschinsky
>
>
> New release will be announced soon

[ANNOUNCE] Apache IGNITE python thin client (pyignite) 0.5.2 released

[Ivan Daschinsky]

The Apache Ignite Community is pleased to announce the release of
Apache IGNITE python thin client (pyignite) 0.5.2.

This new release of python thin client contains bugfixes and it is
recommended to update.
Namely:
1. Fixed incorrect partial read from socket in sync client
1. Fixed nested object arrays deserialization

For the full list of changes, you can refer to the RELEASE_NOTES.


Documentation is available here:
https://apache-ignite-binary-protocol-client.readthedocs.io/en/0.5.2/

You can install this version using pip
>> pip install pyignite==0.5.2

Alternatively, you can download sources and binary packages (wheels) from
here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/ignite/pyignite/0.5.2/

Please let us know if you have any problems
https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#ask

Regards,
Ivan Daschinsky on behalf of the Apache Ignite community.