Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi Roman, thank you for stepping in and fixing tests. The fix was merged into all branches. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 3 окт. 2018 г. в 22:30, Roman Kondakov : > Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > We added an extra memory region for TxLog and this change wasn't > reflected in .Net tests. > > I've made a trivial fix for these issues: > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4910 > > Tests are OK: > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1999429=queuedBuildOverviewTab > > Patch is ready for review and merge. > > -- > Kind Regards > Roman Kondakov > > On 03.10.2018 18:06, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > Hi Igniters, > > > > I see that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390 was > resolved, but > > .Net metrics tests are failing. > > *New test failure in master DataRegionMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=6742613397597284603=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails > > > > *New test failure in master MemoryMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=-7558087625238261420=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails > > > > > > Pavel, > > > > I did all I could by the moment to encourage these tests to be fixed, but > > it seems we need your help to fix these test. > > > > Assert fails 3 instead of 4 in test validation, could you please step in > > and help with fixing this? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > сб, 29 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > >> Vladimir, I agree more with Andrey's fix in the parity test, because it > >> disables only specific property failure. > >> > >> If we keep .NET parity test failed for a long time, some other > >> contributor will introduce new property- it will begin to fail always - > it > >> is like a snowball. > >> > >> I hope the metrics test will also be fixed before 2.7 > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > >> пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 14:43, Павлухин Иван : > >> > >>> Hi guys! > >>> > >>> By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit > without > >>> making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit > >>> will > >>> lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question. > >>> > >>> 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov : > >>> > Hi Dmitriy S., > > I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. > If > >>> I > were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because > of > test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." > > But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix > >>> missed > test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these > >>> test > to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Andrey, > > > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > >> : > >> Hi, > >> > >> Fix is trivial and ready. > >> Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. > >>> Reverting a > >>> commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits > >>> may be > >>> broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > >>> > >>> Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything > >>> that > >> breaks > >>> tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We > > should > >>> all do it. > >>> > >>> D. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > >>> wrote: > >>> > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very > human > >>> thing > to do mistakes. > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of > >>> robot > to > >>> avoid > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h > >>> without > its > >> own > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time > >>> to > > make > contribution perfect. > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe > >> different > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing > >>> tests, > > so > >> it > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that > >>> guys > >> because > of you have other priorities? >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Dmitriy, Vladimir, We added an extra memory region for TxLog and this change wasn't reflected in .Net tests. I've made a trivial fix for these issues: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4910 Tests are OK: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1999429=queuedBuildOverviewTab Patch is ready for review and merge. -- Kind Regards Roman Kondakov On 03.10.2018 18:06, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: Hi Igniters, I see that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390 was resolved, but .Net metrics tests are failing. *New test failure in master DataRegionMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=6742613397597284603=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails *New test failure in master MemoryMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=-7558087625238261420=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails Pavel, I did all I could by the moment to encourage these tests to be fixed, but it seems we need your help to fix these test. Assert fails 3 instead of 4 in test validation, could you please step in and help with fixing this? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov сб, 29 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : Vladimir, I agree more with Andrey's fix in the parity test, because it disables only specific property failure. If we keep .NET parity test failed for a long time, some other contributor will introduce new property- it will begin to fail always - it is like a snowball. I hope the metrics test will also be fixed before 2.7 Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 14:43, Павлухин Иван : Hi guys! By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit will lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question. 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov : Hi Dmitriy S., I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix missed test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these test to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : Andrey, This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov < andrey.mashen...@gmail.com : Hi, Fix is trivial and ready. Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that breaks tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We should all do it. D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < dpavlov@gmail.com wrote: Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human thing to do mistakes. So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to avoid mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own personal attitudes, emotions, etc. Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make contribution perfect. I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe different priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so it is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys because of you have other priorities? пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov < voze...@gridgain.com : Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and we didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < dpavlov@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vladimir, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named configuration finalization. Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with passing tests and merge changes? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov < voze...@gridgain.com : 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
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi Igniters, I see that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390 was resolved, but .Net metrics tests are failing. *New test failure in master DataRegionMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=6742613397597284603=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails *New test failure in master MemoryMetricsTest.TestMemoryMetrics https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=-7558087625238261420=%3Cdefault%3E=testDetails Pavel, I did all I could by the moment to encourage these tests to be fixed, but it seems we need your help to fix these test. Assert fails 3 instead of 4 in test validation, could you please step in and help with fixing this? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov сб, 29 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Vladimir, I agree more with Andrey's fix in the parity test, because it > disables only specific property failure. > > If we keep .NET parity test failed for a long time, some other > contributor will introduce new property- it will begin to fail always - it > is like a snowball. > > I hope the metrics test will also be fixed before 2.7 > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 14:43, Павлухин Иван : > >> Hi guys! >> >> By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without >> making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit >> will >> lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question. >> >> 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov : >> >> > Hi Dmitriy S., >> > >> > I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If >> I >> > were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of >> > test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." >> > >> > But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix >> missed >> > test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these >> test >> > to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > >> > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : >> > >> > > Andrey, >> > > >> > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. >> > > >> > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov < >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com >> > > >: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > Fix is trivial and ready. >> > > > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > > dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. >> Reverting a >> > > > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits >> may be >> > > > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. >> > > > > >> > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything >> that >> > > > breaks >> > > > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We >> > > should >> > > > > all do it. >> > > > > >> > > > > D. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > dpavlov@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very >> > human >> > > > > thing >> > > > > > to do mistakes. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of >> robot >> > to >> > > > > avoid >> > > > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h >> without >> > its >> > > > own >> > > > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time >> to >> > > make >> > > > > > contribution perfect. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe >> > > > different >> > > > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing >> tests, >> > > so >> > > > it >> > > > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that >> guys >> > > > because >> > > > > > of you have other priorities? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov < >> > voze...@gridgain.com >> > > >: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in >> > > Java, >> > > > > and >> > > > > > we >> > > > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better >> > suggest >> > > > you >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead >> of >> > > > trying >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > dpavlov@gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, >> >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Vladimir, I agree more with Andrey's fix in the parity test, because it disables only specific property failure. If we keep .NET parity test failed for a long time, some other contributor will introduce new property- it will begin to fail always - it is like a snowball. I hope the metrics test will also be fixed before 2.7 Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 14:43, Павлухин Иван : > Hi guys! > > By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without > making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit will > lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question. > > 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > Hi Dmitriy S., > > > > I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I > > were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of > > test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." > > > > But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix missed > > test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these > test > > to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Fix is trivial and ready. > > > > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. > Reverting a > > > > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may > be > > > > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > > > > > > > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that > > > > breaks > > > > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We > > > should > > > > > all do it. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very > > human > > > > > thing > > > > > > to do mistakes. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot > > to > > > > > avoid > > > > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without > > its > > > > own > > > > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time > to > > > make > > > > > > contribution perfect. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe > > > > different > > > > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing > tests, > > > so > > > > it > > > > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys > > > > because > > > > > > of you have other priorities? > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in > > > Java, > > > > > and > > > > > > we > > > > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better > > suggest > > > > you > > > > > to > > > > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of > > > > trying > > > > > to > > > > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > finalization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests > passing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization > > with > > > > > > passing > > > > > > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi guys! By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit will lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question. 2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov : > Hi Dmitriy S., > > I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I > were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of > test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." > > But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix missed > test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these test > to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Andrey, > > > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Fix is trivial and ready. > > > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a > > > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be > > > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > > > > > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that > > > breaks > > > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We > > should > > > > all do it. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very > human > > > > thing > > > > > to do mistakes. > > > > > > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot > to > > > > avoid > > > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without > its > > > own > > > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to > > make > > > > > contribution perfect. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe > > > different > > > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, > > so > > > it > > > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys > > > because > > > > > of you have other priorities? > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in > > Java, > > > > and > > > > > we > > > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better > suggest > > > you > > > > to > > > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of > > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > finalization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization > with > > > > > passing > > > > > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi Dmitriy S., I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened." But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix missed test failures and they managed to do it in 1-2 days, I'm waiting these test to be fixed by Ignite veteran(s) for 11 days. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:16, Vladimir Ozerov : > Andrey, > > This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov >: > > > Hi, > > > > Fix is trivial and ready. > > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a > > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be > > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > > > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that > > breaks > > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We > should > > > all do it. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human > > > thing > > > > to do mistakes. > > > > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to > > > avoid > > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its > > own > > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > > > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to > make > > > > contribution perfect. > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe > > different > > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, > so > > it > > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys > > because > > > > of you have other priorities? > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in > Java, > > > and > > > > we > > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest > > you > > > to > > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of > > trying > > > to > > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > > > > configuration > > > > > > finalization. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with > > > > passing > > > > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Andrey, This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov : > Hi, > > Fix is trivial and ready. > Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a > > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be > > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > > > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that > breaks > > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We should > > all do it. > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human > > thing > > > to do mistakes. > > > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to > > avoid > > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its > own > > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make > > > contribution perfect. > > > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe > different > > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so > it > > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys > because > > > of you have other priorities? > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, > > and > > > we > > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest > you > > to > > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of > trying > > to > > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > > > configuration > > > > > finalization. > > > > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with > > > passing > > > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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 < > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi, Fix is trivial and ready. Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764 On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a > commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be > broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. > > Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that breaks > tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We should > all do it. > > D. > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human > thing > > to do mistakes. > > > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to > avoid > > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own > > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make > > contribution perfect. > > > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe different > > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so it > > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys because > > of you have other priorities? > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, > and > > we > > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you > to > > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying > to > > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > > configuration > > > > finalization. > > > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with > > passing > > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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 < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > 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 < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder. Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that breaks tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We should all do it. D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human thing > to do mistakes. > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to avoid > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make > contribution perfect. > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe different > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so it > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys because > of you have other priorities? > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and > we > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > configuration > > > finalization. > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with > passing > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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 < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > 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 < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > 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: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human thing to do mistakes. So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to avoid mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own personal attitudes, emotions, etc. Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make contribution perfect. I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe different priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so it is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys because of you have other priorities? пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov : > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and we > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named configuration > > finalization. > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with passing > > tests and merge changes? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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 < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > 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 < > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > 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 < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > 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: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and we didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named configuration > finalization. > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with passing > tests and merge changes? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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 < > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > 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 < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > 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: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi Dmitriy, Why not revert the change? This test failure was appropriately reported to the dev list, and the contributor did not fix it: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/MTCGA-new-failures-in-builds-1888723-needs-to-be-handled-td35239.html It seems this idea of filing blockers does not work well. It means for community member: - someday/maybe/someone will fix this blocker - or he/she will move it to 3.0 - or we will reclassify and minor and mute test. I can see tons of tests fixes going from 2.7 to 2.8. It always means I, for example, will break test today, and someone will come and do not-so-fun work for me. I see tons of tickets about fixing the tests, so I prefer that Igniters who invest their time here should achieve the result (green master), but not those who are ignoring How To Contribute, even it is GridGain'ers. I suggest reverts of new stable test failures should be more or less automatic after 72h as a reasonable time to fix it. If contributor would like to finalize solution (and most of the cases it is so), a test will be fixed in 3 days. If not, why to have not ready solutions in master, let's have it in separate branches. So, what do you suggest instead? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 2:40, 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: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
Hi Vladimir, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named configuration finalization. Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with passing tests and merge changes? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, 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. > > > > > >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
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. > > >
Re: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
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: [Discussion] revert of commit MVCC, ignite-9320
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
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
