Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Yes, currently handler handles exception in the same way as 'GridAbstractTest', so, it will work from any thread. пт, 11 янв. 2019 г., 15:18 Ilya Lantukh ilant...@gridgain.com: > Dmitry, > > It doesn't make sense to run that test now because the root cause of it's > failure had been fixed. > > You should verify that getting an unhandled exception in any system thread > leads to the failure of currently running test. > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > >> Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]? >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662 >> >> 10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" >> написал: >> >> Reverted. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened >> >> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> >> >> > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it. >> > >> > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both >> > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it >> is >> > the only option and it should be reverted. >> > >> > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so >> reverting >> > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we >> > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come >> and >> > give feedback. >> > >> > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it >> later. >> > >> > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov : >> > >> >> Dmitriy, >> >> >> >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. >> >> Why it still not reverted? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. >> >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi Ilya, >> >> > > >> >> > > thank you for noticing. >> >> > > >> >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, >> >> > > >> >> > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); >> >> > > >> >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework >> >> fix >> >> > > >> >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. >> >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and >> >> > > correctly failing test. >> >> > > >> >> > > Sincerely, >> >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : >> >> > > >> >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote >> a >> >> test >> >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following >> text >> >> > into >> >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": >> >> > > > >> >> > > > [2018-12-07 >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] >> >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to >> >> > configured >> >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], >> failureCtx=FailureContext >> >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: >> Unable to >> >> > find >> >> > > > consistentId by UUID >> [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 >> >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by >> UUID >> >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) >> >> > > > at >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> >>
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitry, It doesn't make sense to run that test now because the root cause of it's failure had been fixed. You should verify that getting an unhandled exception in any system thread leads to the failure of currently running test. On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Dmitrii Ryabov wrote: > Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662 > > 10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" > написал: > > Reverted. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it. > > > > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both > > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is > > the only option and it should be reverted. > > > > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting > > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we > > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come > and > > give feedback. > > > > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it > later. > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov : > > > >> Dmitriy, > >> > >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. > >> Why it still not reverted? > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. > >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : > >> > > > >> > > Hi Ilya, > >> > > > >> > > thank you for noticing. > >> > > > >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, > >> > > > >> > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); > >> > > > >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework > >> fix > >> > > > >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. > >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and > >> > > correctly failing test. > >> > > > >> > > Sincerely, > >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : > >> > > > >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a > >> test > >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following > text > >> > into > >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": > >> > > > > >> > > > [2018-12-07 > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] > >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to > >> > configured > >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], > failureCtx=FailureContext > >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable > to > >> > find > >> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 > >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by > UUID > >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) > >> > > > at > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662 10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" написал: Reverted. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it. > > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is > the only option and it should be reverted. > > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and > give feedback. > > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later. > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov : > >> Dmitriy, >> >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. >> Why it still not reverted? >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov >> wrote: >> >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > > >> > > Hi Ilya, >> > > >> > > thank you for noticing. >> > > >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, >> > > >> > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); >> > > >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework >> fix >> > > >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and >> > > correctly failing test. >> > > >> > > Sincerely, >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > >> > > >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : >> > > >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a >> test >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text >> > into >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": >> > > > >> > > > [2018-12-07 >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to >> > configured >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to >> > find >> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >>
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Reverted. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it. > > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is > the only option and it should be reverted. > > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and > give feedback. > > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later. > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov : > >> Dmitriy, >> >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. >> Why it still not reverted? >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov >> wrote: >> >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > > >> > > Hi Ilya, >> > > >> > > thank you for noticing. >> > > >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, >> > > >> > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); >> > > >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework >> fix >> > > >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and >> > > correctly failing test. >> > > >> > > Sincerely, >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > >> > > >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : >> > > >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a >> test >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text >> > into >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": >> > > > >> > > > [2018-12-07 >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to >> > configured >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to >> > find >> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) >> > > > at >> > > > >> > > > >> > >>
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it. Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is the only option and it should be reverted. Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and give feedback. So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later. пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitriy, > > You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. > Why it still not reverted? > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > > > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > thank you for noticing. > > > > > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, > > > > > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); > > > > > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix > > > > > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. > > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and > > > correctly failing test. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a > test > > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text > > into > > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": > > > > > > > > [2018-12-07 > > > > > > > > > > > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] > > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to > > configured > > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext > > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to > > find > > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 > > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID > > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy, You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday. Why it still not reverted? On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov wrote: > Agree, it is reasonable to revert. > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > thank you for noticing. > > > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, > > > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); > > > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix > > > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and > > correctly failing test. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : > > > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text > into > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": > > > > > > [2018-12-07 > > > > > > > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to > configured > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to > find > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092) > > > at > > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505) > > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120) > > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, > and > > > then >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Agree, it is reasonable to revert. пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > Hi Ilya, > > thank you for noticing. > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, > > throw new AssertionFailedError(message); > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and > correctly failing test. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into > > log, but the test still passes "successfully": > > > > [2018-12-07 > > > > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092) > > at > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505) > > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120) > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and > > then > > > on > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and > > > >> constructive manner. > > > Agree > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton. > > > > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. > > > > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. > > > > > > > > So, this
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hi Ilya, thank you for noticing. Calling to fail is equal to re-throw, throw new AssertionFailedError(message); So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences. - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and correctly failing test. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh : > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into > log, but the test still passes "successfully": > > [2018-12-07 > > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092) > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and > then > > on > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and > > >> constructive manner. > > Agree > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > > Anton. > > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. > > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. > > > > > > So, this fix make things better. > > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it. > > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests. > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch? > > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into log, but the test still passes "successfully": [2018-12-07 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources] Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0 java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c3, topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]] at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62) at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100) at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299) at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568) at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196) at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127) at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092) at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505) at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then > on > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and > >> constructive manner. > Agree > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > Anton. > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. > > > > So, this fix make things better. > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it. > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests. > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch? > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > > > demonstrate > > >>> the idea. > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of > > > unacceptable code merge situation. > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again. > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive > > duplication > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation. > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he > > merged. > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way > unacceptable. > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some > > objections. > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
>> We stop, for now, then you will chill a >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then on >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and >> constructive manner. Agree On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Anton. > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. > > So, this fix make things better. > > I think we shouldn't revert it. > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests. > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch? > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > > demonstrate > >>> the idea. > > > > Dmitriy, > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of > > unacceptable code merge situation. > > Such merges should NEVER happen again. > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive > duplication > > and fixes without proper reason investigation. > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he > merged. > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable. > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some > objections. > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead. > > > > Dmitrii, > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the > > reasons for > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if > needed. > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday > evening, > > the code will be rolled back. > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated. > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons > for > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > >> > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > >> > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will > >> always > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests. > >>> > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of > this > >>> test, > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it > is > >>> checked? > >>> - failure handler influence, etc. > >>> > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > >> demonstrate > >>> the idea. > >>> > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > >>> > Dmitrii, > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > >>> for > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with > >>> no-op > to have a proper handler? > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final > >>> step. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван > >>> wrote: > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > looks good to me so far. > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > >> > >> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks > like > > we > >> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > >> > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create > >> ticket > for > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > >> > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > >> > >>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > >>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван < > >> vololo...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >>> > Nikolay, > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good > that > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 > >>> tests > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion > >>> from > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve > >> the > patch then let's do it. > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> nizhi...@apache.org > : > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > >> I hope you've
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton. I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov. 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge. 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon. So, this fix make things better. I think we shouldn't revert it. I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests. Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch? On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > demonstrate >>> the idea. > > Dmitriy, > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of > unacceptable code merge situation. > Such merges should NEVER happen again. > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication > and fixes without proper reason investigation. > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he merged. > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable. > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some objections. > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead. > > Dmitrii, >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the > reasons for >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening, > the code will be rolled back. > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov wrote: > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. >> >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: >> >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will >> always >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests. >>> >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this >>> test, >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is >>> checked? >>> - failure handler influence, etc. >>> >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to >> demonstrate >>> the idea. >>> >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : >>> Dmitrii, >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket >>> for >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with >>> no-op to have a proper handler? Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final >>> step. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван >>> wrote: > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > looks good to me so far. > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : >> >> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like > we >> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. >> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create >> ticket for >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. >> >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: >> >>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. >>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван < >> vololo...@gmail.com > wrote: >>> Nikolay, I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 >>> tests investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion >>> from Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve >> the patch then let's do it. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov < >> nizhi...@apache.org : > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > Sorry, one more time. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > >> I hope you've misprinted here >>> I'm here to blame the author. >> >> We can blame code but never coders. >> >> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has >>> absolutely >>> nothing in >> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is >> a >>> practical >> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. >> >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < nizhi...@apache.org >> : >> >>> Ivan. >>> 1. Accept the
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I have another proposal. We stop, for now, then you will chill a little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then on Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and constructive manner. Trying to win in a match "my revert is bigger than yours/my code is better than yours" will not help to anyone. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 15:02, Anton Vinogradov : > >> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > demonstrate > >> the idea. > > Dmitriy, > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of > unacceptable code merge situation. > Such merges should NEVER happen again. > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication > and fixes without proper reason investigation. > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he > merged. > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable. > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some > objections. > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead. > > Dmitrii, > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the > reasons for > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening, > the code will be rolled back. > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > > > Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons > for > > no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will > > always > > > require to understand what test does and what it tests. > > > > > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add > > > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of > this > > > test, > > > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it > is > > > checked? > > > - failure handler influence, etc. > > > > > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > > demonstrate > > > the idea. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create > ticket > > > for > > > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with > > > no-op > > > > to have a proper handler? > > > > > > > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final > > > step. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > > > > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > > > > looks good to me so far. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it > looks > > > > like > > > > > we > > > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create > > ticket > > > > for > > > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is > good > > > > that > > > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 > > > tests > > > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an > opinion > > > from > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve > > the > > > > > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov > dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate >> the idea. Dmitriy, Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of unacceptable code merge situation. Such merges should NEVER happen again. Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication and fixes without proper reason investigation. Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he merged. The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable. Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some objections. But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead. Dmitrii, >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the reasons for >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening, the code will be rolled back. Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov wrote: > Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for > no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will > always > > require to understand what test does and what it tests. > > > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add > > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this > > test, > > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is > > checked? > > - failure handler influence, etc. > > > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > demonstrate > > the idea. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > > for > > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with > > no-op > > > to have a proper handler? > > > > > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final > > step. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > > > looks good to me so far. > > > > > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks > > > like > > > > we > > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create > ticket > > > for > > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван < > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good > > > that > > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 > > tests > > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion > > from > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve > the > > > > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has > > absolutely > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is > a > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite > > (and > > > > > > create > > > > > > > a> > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always > require to understand what test does and what it tests. > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this > test, > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is > checked? > - failure handler influence, etc. > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate > the idea. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Dmitrii, > > > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > for > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with > no-op > > to have a proper handler? > > > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final > step. > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван > wrote: > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > > looks good to me so far. > > > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks > > like > > > we > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > > for > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good > > that > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 > tests > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion > from > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has > absolutely > > > > > nothing > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite > (and > > > > > create > > > > > > a> > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different > approach > > > how to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > > > > > product(Ignite > > > > > > > > > and others). > > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all > > > places > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have > not > > > got a > > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests > require > > > noop > > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are > > > covered >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Nikolay, Answering your questions a couple of emails ago. Only one valid reason to avoid NoOp it the risk - we don't correctly understand test meaning by class name, we don't catch it's expected flow and - there is some test which uses NoOp now, but should not. Any failure in such test included to set of NoOp handlers test can be hidden and the test will pass for whatever reason, e.g. poor validation of expected behavior. So suggested analog to this is muted failures, which runs on TC but don't signal us that something is wrong. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:53, Dmitriy Pavlov : > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will > always require to understand what test does and what it tests. > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this > test, > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is > checked? > - failure handler influence, etc. > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to > demonstrate the idea. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > >> Dmitrii, >> >> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket >> for >> >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. >> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with >> no-op >> to have a proper handler? >> >> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step. >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: >> >> > Dmitrii Ryabov, >> > >> > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach >> > looks good to me so far. >> > >> > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) >> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : >> > > >> > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks >> like >> > we >> > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. >> > > >> > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket >> for >> > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. >> > > >> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: >> > > >> > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. >> > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Nikolay, >> > > > > >> > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good >> that >> > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests >> > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion >> from >> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the >> > > > > patch then let's do it. >> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov > >: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sorry, one more time. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here >> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely >> > > > nothing >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a >> > > > practical >> > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < >> nizhi...@apache.org >> > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ivan. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite >> (and >> > > > create >> > > > > a> >> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I support this idea. >> > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach >> > how to >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap >> > > > > refactoring. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". >> > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the >> > > > > product(Ignite >> > > > > > > > and others). >> > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. >> > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all >> > places >> > > > > with >> > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: >> > > > > > > > > Guys, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always require to understand what test does and what it tests. So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this test, - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is checked? - failure handler influence, etc. I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate the idea. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitrii, > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op > to have a proper handler? > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > > > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > > looks good to me so far. > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks > like > > we > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket > for > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good > that > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely > > > > nothing > > > > > in > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > > > > practical > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > > > create > > > > > a> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > > how to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > > > > product(Ignite > > > > > > > > and others). > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all > > places > > > > > with > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not > > got a > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require > > noop > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are > > covered > > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > > how to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I > > can > > > > > suggest > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii, >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for >> appropriate changes and recheck issues. Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op to have a proper handler? Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > Dmitrii Ryabov, > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach > looks good to me so far. > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like > we > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for > > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван > wrote: > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > > > patch then let's do it. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely > > > nothing > > > > in > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > > > practical > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > > create > > > > a> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > how to > > > > the > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > > > product(Ignite > > > > > > > and others). > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all > places > > > > with > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not > got a > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require > noop > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are > covered > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach > how to > > > > the > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I > can > > > > suggest > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be > > > costly. > > > > So, > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen > for > > > > sure: > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > > create > > > > a > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and > then > > > > do it > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can > guarantee > > > it. > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I > believe > > > > that > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii Ryabov, Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach looks good to me so far. P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =) чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for > appropriate changes and recheck issues. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > > patch then let's do it. > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely > > nothing > > > in > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > > practical > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > create > > > a> > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > > > the > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > > product(Ignite > > > > > > and others). > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places > > > with > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > > > the > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > > refactoring. > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can > > > suggest > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be > > costly. > > > So, > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for > > > sure: > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > > create > > > a > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then > > > do it > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee > > it. > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe > > > that > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > > > > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details > > if > > > > > no-op > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed. I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for appropriate changes and recheck issues. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov a...@apache.org: > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > > > Nikolay, > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > > patch then let's do it. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely > nothing > > in > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a > practical > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > create > > a> > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > > the > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > > product(Ignite > > > > > and others). > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places > > with > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > > > > there. > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > > the > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > > refactoring. > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can > > suggest > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be > costly. > > So, > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for > > sure: > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and > create > > a > > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then > > do it > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee > it. > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe > > that > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > > > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details > if > > > > no-op > > > > > was > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Folks, thank's everyone for solution research. I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > Nikolay, > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > patch then let's do it. > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing > in > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create > a> > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > the > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > refactoring. > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > product(Ignite > > > > and others). > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places > with > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > > > there. > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > the > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > refactoring. > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can > suggest > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. > So, > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for > sure: > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create > a > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then > do it > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe > that > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if > > > no-op > > > > was > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > But > > > > still, it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with > better > > > > > > > > exception > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - > and > > > I'll > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ivan, Got it. Thanks for the explanation. > mostly I would like an opinion from Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author Dmitriy, can you answer? I can do this improvement by myself, by if you want to do it - go ahead. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 12:11, Павлухин Иван : > Nikolay, > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the > patch then let's do it. > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > > > Sorry, one more time. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing > in > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create > a> > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > the > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > refactoring. > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the > product(Ignite > > > > and others). > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places > with > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > > > there. > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to > the > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap > refactoring. > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can > suggest > > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. > So, > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for > sure: > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create > a > > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then > do it > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe > that > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if > > > no-op > > > > was > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > But > > > > still, it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with > better > > > > > > > > exception > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as > well. > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Nikolay, I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the patch then let's do it. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov : > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". > > Sorry, one more time. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > I hope you've misprinted here > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > > We can blame code but never coders. > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > Ivan. > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a> > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > > > I support this idea. > > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite > > > and others). > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > > there. > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest > > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So, > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure: > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a > > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if > > no-op > > > was > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But > > > still, it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better > > > > > > > exception > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and > > I'll > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this > > > nonsense. If > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the > > > community, > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By > > this > > > > > > > commit, > > > > > > > we had
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry. Of course it should be "NOT to blame author". Sorry, one more time. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > I hope you've misprinted here > > I'm here to blame the author. > > We can blame code but never coders. > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Ivan. > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a> > > ticket for further investigation). > > > > I support this idea. > > Do we create the tickets already? > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite > > and others). > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > > > I'm here to blame the author. > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > Guys, > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > > there. > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest > > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So, > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure: > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a > > > ticket for further investigation). > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if > no-op > > was > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But > > still, it > > > > > > is > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better > > > > > > exception > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and > I'll > > > > > > explain > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this > > nonsense. If > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the > > community, > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By > this > > > > > > commit, > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, > > and we’re > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was > > copy-pasted, > > > > > > aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to > > have with > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why > > there > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
I hope you've misprinted here > I'm here to blame the author. We can blame code but never coders. Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere. чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov : > Ivan. > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a> > ticket for further investigation). > > I support this idea. > Do we create the tickets already? > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > I don't agree with your term "cheap". > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite > and others). > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. > > I'm here to blame the author. > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with > NoOp handler to do the further investigation. > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > Guys, > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > > there. > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest > > another slightly different trick [2]. > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So, > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure: > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a > > ticket for further investigation). > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that > > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in > ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op > was > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But > still, it > > > > > is > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better > > > > > exception > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll > > > > > explain > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this > nonsense. If > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the > community, > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this > > > > > commit, > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, > and we’re > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was > copy-pasted, > > > > > aren’t we? > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to > have with > > > > > no-op: please visit this page > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why > there > > > > > are > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely > unconditionally > > > > > muted failures? > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting > absolutely > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as > well, to > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ivan. > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a> ticket > for further investigation). I support this idea. Do we create the tickets already? > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. I don't agree with your term "cheap". Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it? I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite and others). I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it. I'm here to blame the author. I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with NoOp handler to do the further investigation. В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > Guys, > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered > there. > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest > another slightly different trick [2]. > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So, > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure: > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a > ticket for further investigation). > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that > it is good if the system "can make a progress". > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > Dmitriy. > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was > > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it > > > > is > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better > > > > exception > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll > > > > explain > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. > > > > If > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the > > > > community, > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this > > > > commit, > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and > > > > we’re > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, > > > > aren’t we? > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have > > > > with > > > > no-op: please visit this page > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there > > > > are > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally > > > > muted failures? > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, > > > > to > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially > > > > if > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join > > > > the > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, > > > > and > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- > > > > more > > > > you can
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Guys, I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a direct answer. But I think I got some pain points: 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered there. 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements. Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring. But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest another slightly different trick [2]. Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So, in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure: 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a ticket for further investigation). 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement. One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it. So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that it is good if the system "can make a progress". [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > Dmitriy. > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was > copy-pasted, aren’t we? > > Can you explain this idea a bit more? > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > > What do you think? > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > >> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it > >> is > >> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better > >> exception > >> handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > >> > >> This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll > >> explain > >> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If > >> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community, > >> we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. > >> > >> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this > >> commit, > >> we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re > >> still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, > >> aren’t we? > >> > >> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with > >> no-op: please visit this page > >> > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > >> > >> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there > >> are > >> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally > >> muted failures? > >> > >> Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely > >> positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? > >> > >> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to > >> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to > >> read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially > >> if > >> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. > >> > >> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join > >> the > >> process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, > >> and > >> some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more > >> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much > >> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do > >> deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not > >> without deep analysis? > >> > >> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people > >> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper > >> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result: > >> some of us knew it only now. > >> > >> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect > >> code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and > >> you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'. > >> > >> > >> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov : > >> > >> > Dmitriy. > >> > > >> > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache > >> > Way all the time :) > >> > > >> > Anyway, I propose to return to the code! > >> > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy. > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, aren’t we? Can you explain this idea a bit more? I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov : > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. > What do you think? > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > >> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it >> is >> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better >> exception >> handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. >> >> This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll >> explain >> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If >> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community, >> we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. >> >> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this >> commit, >> we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re >> still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, >> aren’t we? >> >> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with >> no-op: please visit this page >> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ >> >> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there >> are >> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally >> muted failures? >> >> Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely >> positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? >> >> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to >> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to >> read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially >> if >> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. >> >> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join >> the >> process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, >> and >> some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more >> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much >> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do >> deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not >> without deep analysis? >> >> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people >> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper >> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result: >> some of us knew it only now. >> >> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect >> code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and >> you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'. >> >> >> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov : >> >> > Dmitriy. >> > >> > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache >> > Way all the time :) >> > >> > Anyway, I propose to return to the code! >> > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with >> > NoOpHandler. >> > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation: >> > >> > 1. No copy paste code >> > 2. Reduce changes. >> > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep >> search. >> > >> > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach >> [1] >> > I can go further and prepare full fix. >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files >> > >> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > >> > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix >> itself, >> > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the >> > list >> > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to >> others >> > to >> > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. >> > > >> > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest >> > help >> > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a >> > > decision. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and >> > should >> > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before >> Dmitriy >> > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of >> tests. >> > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after >> revisiting >> > > no-op test list. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler. What do you think? Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach? ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it is > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better exception > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll explain > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community, > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this commit, > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, > aren’t we? > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with > no-op: please visit this page > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there are > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally > muted failures? > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially if > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join the > process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, and > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not > without deep analysis? > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result: > some of us knew it only now. > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'. > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Dmitriy. > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache > > Way all the time :) > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code! > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with > > NoOpHandler. > > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation: > > > > 1. No copy paste code > > 2. Reduce changes. > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search. > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach > [1] > > I can go further and prepare full fix. > > > > What do you think? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix > itself, > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the > > list > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others > > to > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest > > help > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a > > > decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and > > should > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before > Dmitriy > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of > tests. > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after > revisiting > > > no-op test list. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew, > Dmitrii & > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double > > check > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And > > this > > > is how a community works. > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to > do > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but > has > > > other goals. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov :
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it is not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better exception handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well. This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll explain why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community, we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code. The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~5-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted, aren’t we? To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with no-op: please visit this page https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8=mutedProblems_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__ It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there are no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally muted failures? Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.? Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially if the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix. This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join the process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, and some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not without deep analysis? Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result: some of us knew it only now. Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov : > Dmitriy. > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache > Way all the time :) > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code! > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with > NoOpHandler. > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation: > > 1. No copy paste code > 2. Reduce changes. > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search. > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach [1] > I can go further and prepare full fix. > > What do you think? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself, > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the > list > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others > to > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest > help > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a > > decision. > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and > should > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests. > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting > > no-op test list. > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew, Dmitrii & > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double > check > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And > this > > is how a community works. > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has > > other goals. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion, > > > > > > > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > failure > > > like node stop or exception thrown > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy. I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache Way all the time :) Anyway, I propose to return to the code! I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with NoOpHandler. This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation: 1. No copy paste code 2. Reduce changes. 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search. I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach [1] I can go further and prepare full fix. What do you think? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself, > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the list > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others to > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest help > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a > decision. > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and should > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests. > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting > no-op test list. > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew, Dmitrii & > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double check > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And this > is how a community works. > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has > other goals. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > As I can see from the above discussion, > > > > > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > failure > > like node stop or exception thrown > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov. > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1] > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern. > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling? > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess > that > > > patches brings to the code base. > > > Example of cleanup [2] > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review > > this > > > cleanup patch. > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements". > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean. > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > provided. > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit. > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect > > > > >> in a single fix? > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler > > > > > fallbacks were added? > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any > > > meaningful > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or > > > > explain > > > > > > why it's a better choice). > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a > couple > > of > > > > > these > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't > you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test > to > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself, but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the list and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others to rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere. If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest help (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a decision. And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and should not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests. Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting no-op test list. We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew, Dmitrii & Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double check for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And this is how a community works. If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has other goals. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov : > As I can see from the above discussion, > > > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical failure > like node stop or exception thrown > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov. > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1] > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern. > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling? > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that > > patches brings to the code base. > > Example of cleanup [2] > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review > this > > cleanup patch. > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements". > > > > > I really like your perfectionism > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean. > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > provided. > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit. > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd > > [2] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect > > > >> in a single fix? > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler > > > > fallbacks were added? > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any > > meaningful > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or > > > explain > > > > > why it's a better choice). > > > > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple > of > > > > these > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to > > keep > > > > > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate > these > > > > > > overridden method now. > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. > > Is > > > it > > > > > Ok > > > > > > for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for > several > > > > tests? > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation > > why > > > > > tests > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate > any > > > > > better > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
As I can see from the above discussion, > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical failure like node stop or exception thrown So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov : > Hello, Igniters. > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov. > > I think we should avoid commits like [1] > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern. > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling? > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that > patches brings to the code base. > Example of cleanup [2] > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review this > cleanup patch. > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements". > > > I really like your perfectionism > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean. > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit. > At least, we should reduce copy paste code. > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Andrey, > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect > > >> in a single fix? > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler > > > fallbacks were added? > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any > meaningful > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or > > explain > > > > why it's a better choice). > > > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of > > > these > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to > keep > > > > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > > > > > overridden method now. > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. > Is > > it > > > > Ok > > > > > for you? > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > > > tests? > > > > > Why > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation > why > > > > tests > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any > > > > better > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure > handler. > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests > > fail > > > > > > without no-op handler? > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make > > > > everything > > > > > > properly. > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > > > tests? > > > > > Why > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name > > > "massive > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only > where > > > it > > > > is > > > > > > > > assumed". > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hello, Igniters. I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov. I think we should avoid commits like [1] Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern. Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling? Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that patches brings to the code base. Example of cleanup [2] It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review this cleanup patch. We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements". > I really like your perfectionism It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean. > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. +1 to rollback and rework this commit. At least, we should reduce copy paste code. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov : > Andrey, > > >> But why should we make all things perfect > >> in a single fix? > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitry, > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler > > fallbacks were added? > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or > explain > > > why it's a better choice). > > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of > > these > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep > > > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > > > > overridden method now. > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is > it > > > Ok > > > > for you? > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > > tests? > > > > Why > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why > > > tests > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any > > > better > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests > fail > > > > > without no-op handler? > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make > > > everything > > > > > properly. > > > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be > > able > > > to > > > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > > tests? > > > > Why > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван < > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name > > "massive > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where > > it > > > is > > > > > > > assumed". > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > > > > > failures > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions > > because > > > > you > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better > > > than > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further > improvements. > > > And > > > > I > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your > > intent. > > > If > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Andrey, >> But why should we make all things perfect >> in a single fix? As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :) But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov wrote: > Dmitry, > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler > fallbacks were added? > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain > > why it's a better choice). > > Explicit confirmation required. > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of > these > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep > > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > > > overridden method now. > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it > > Ok > > > for you? > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > tests? > > > Why > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why > > tests > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any > > better > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail > > > > without no-op handler? > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make > > everything > > > > properly. > > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be > able > > to > > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several > tests? > > > Why > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name > "massive > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where > it > > is > > > > > > assumed". > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > > > > failures > > > > > as > > > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions > because > > > you > > > > > > know > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better > > than > > > > me. > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. > > And > > > I > > > > > will > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your > intent. > > If > > > > you > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to > convince > > > me > > > > > and > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch > made > > > > really > > > > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful > > failure > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was > > is > > > > the > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix > > > these > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what > > problems > > > > the > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will > > > > rollback > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitry, Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler fallbacks were added? Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful failure handler for such tests with TC report attached. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Dmitriy, > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain > why it's a better choice). > Explicit confirmation required. > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > > overridden method now. > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it > Ok > > for you? > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > > Why > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why > tests > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any > better > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail > > > without no-op handler? > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make > everything > > > properly. > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able > to > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > > Why > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it > is > > > > > assumed". > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > > > failures > > > > as > > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because > > you > > > > > know > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better > than > > > me. > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. > And > > I > > > > will > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. > If > > > you > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince > > me > > > > and > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made > > > really > > > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful > failure > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was > is > > > the > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix > > these > > > > test > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what > problems > > > the > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will > > > rollback > > > > > the > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At > > least, > > > > > such > > > > > > > "100 > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing > for > > > each > > > > > test > > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent > merge > > > > > without > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I really like your perfectionism. But why should we make all things perfect in a single fix? The change you want to roll back is definitely useful for the project: the majority of our tests do not hide potential bugs under no-op handler anymore, and the small number of tests require additional thorough investigation. So, the change looks complete for me. And of course we are to file a separate ticket regarding those 100+ tests you mentioned and work on it without rushing. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 16:41, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitriy, > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain > why it's a better choice). > Explicit confirmation required. > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep > > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > > overridden method now. > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it > Ok > > for you? > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > > Why > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why > tests > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any > better > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail > > > without no-op handler? > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make > everything > > > properly. > > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able > to > > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > > Why > > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it > is > > > > > assumed". > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > > > failures > > > > as > > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because > > you > > > > > know > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better > than > > > me. > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. > And > > I > > > > will > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. > If > > > you > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince > > me > > > > and > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made > > > really > > > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful > failure > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was > is > > > the > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix > > these > > > > test > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what > problems > > > the > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will > > > rollback > > > > > the > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At > > least, > > > > > such > > > > > > > "100 > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing > for > > > each > > > > > test > > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy, It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain why it's a better choice). Explicit confirmation required. Otherwise, only rollback is an option. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep > moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these > overridden method now. > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it Ok > for you? > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > Why > > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests > > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail > > without no-op handler? > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything > > properly. > > Make a proper investigation first. > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to > > start doing this after rollback. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? > Why > > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > > > > assumed". > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > > failures > > > as > > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because > you > > > > know > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than > > me. > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And > I > > > will > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If > > you > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince > me > > > and > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made > > really > > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is > > the > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix > these > > > test > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems > > the > > > > fix > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will > > rollback > > > > the > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At > least, > > > > such > > > > > > "100 > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for > > each > > > > test > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > > > > without > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks > louder > > > than > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, > > which > > > > is not > > > > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the > > > initial > > > > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set > new > > > > handler > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you? I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep moving towards 010 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these overridden method now. So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it Ok for you? ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov : > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why > >> should we keep No-Op for all? > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests > fail and why no-op is a better choice. > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail > without no-op handler? > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything > properly. > Make a proper investigation first. > > > Finally, let's stop this game. > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to > start doing this after rollback. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why > > should we keep No-Op for all? > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван > wrote: > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > > > assumed". > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have > failures > > as > > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > > > know > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than > me. > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I > > will > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If > you > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me > > and > > > > others. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made > really > > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is > the > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these > > test > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems > the > > > fix > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will > rollback > > > the > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, > > > such > > > > > "100 > > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for > each > > > test > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > > > without > > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder > > than > > > > > words > > > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, > which > > > is not > > > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the > > initial > > > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new > > > handler > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful > in > > > case > > > > > of > > > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why > > > these > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
>> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why >> should we keep No-Op for all? Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests fail and why no-op is a better choice. 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok! >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail without no-op handler? My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything properly. Make a proper investigation first. Finally, let's stop this game. We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail. In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to start doing this after rollback. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev < eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why > should we keep No-Op for all? > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > > > Anton, > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > > assumed". > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures > as > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > > know > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I > will > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me > and > > > others. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these > test > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the > > fix > > > > > fixes. > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback > > the > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, > > such > > > > "100 > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each > > test > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > > without > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder > than > > > > words > > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which > > is not > > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the > initial > > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new > > handler > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in > > case > > > > of > > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why > > these > > > > tests > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > > > > merged > > > > > > such > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > > > > Please > > > > > > pay > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Guys, I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why should we keep No-Op for all? On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > Anton, > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > assumed". > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as > > these tests do test failures. > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > know > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and > > others. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > > > worse? > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the > fix > > > > fixes. > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback > the > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, > such > > > "100 > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each > test > > > > group. > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > without > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than > > > words > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which > is not > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new > handler > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in > case > > > of > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why > these > > > tests > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > > > merged > > > > > such > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > > > Please > > > > > pay > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please > discuss > > > this > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit > changes > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer > and > > > handle > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail > handler is > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation > > > inside > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace > them > > > with > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I disagree with this approach: "You will ask, other will provide explanations/excuses/apology and so on". Since you rejecting to chime in and help this means trying to manage instead of doing. I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. I think the only option is NoOp - we see this approach here. Just take 1 test and prove your concept using any other option. If we don't have other options, there is nothing to discuss why it is NoOp for 100 tests. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:38, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov, > > >> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > know > >> how to do things better. > > What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but . 100+ > no-op still here because tests start failing :)" > That's a completely different situation. > And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution. > > A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op handler > still required. > > Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it ok > or no. > Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is > nothing to discuss. > > Please provide at least some examples with the following template > Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY > and we will agree or will try to find a better solution. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > > > Anton, > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > > assumed". > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures > as > > > these tests do test failures. > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > > know > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I > will > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me > and > > > others. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > > > > worse? > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these > test > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the > > fix > > > > > fixes. > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback > > the > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, > > such > > > > "100 > > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each > > test > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > > without > > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder > than > > > > words > > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which > > is not > > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the > initial > > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new > > handler > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in > > case > > > > of > > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why > > these > > > > tests > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > > > > merged > > > > > > such > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ivan, >> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive >> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is >> assumed". How about "we changed some handlers to proper, but keep other no-ops using explicit copy-paste"? :) On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov, > > >> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > know > >> how to do things better. > > What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but . 100+ > no-op still here because tests start failing :)" > That's a completely different situation. > And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution. > > A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op > handler still required. > > Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it > ok or no. > Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is > nothing to discuss. > > Please provide at least some examples with the following template > Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY > and we will agree or will try to find a better solution. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > >> Anton, >> >> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive >> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is >> assumed". >> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > >> > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures >> as >> > these tests do test failures. >> > >> > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you >> know >> > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. >> > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. >> > >> > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I >> will >> > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. >> > >> > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you >> > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and >> > others. >> > >> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : >> > >> > > Hi Anton, >> > > >> > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really >> > > worse? >> > > >> > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure >> > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the >> > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? >> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : >> > > > >> > > > Dmitriy, >> > > > >> > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these >> test >> > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. >> > > > >> > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the >> fix >> > > > fixes. >> > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback >> the >> > > > changes. >> > > > >> > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, >> such >> > > "100 >> > > > times copy-paste fix". >> > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each >> test >> > > > group. >> > > > >> > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge >> without >> > > > understanding what it fixes. >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder >> than >> > > words >> > > > > sometimes. >> > > > > >> > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which >> is not >> > > > > clear for others. >> > > > > >> > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial >> > > > > selection of no-op. >> > > > > >> > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new >> handler >> > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. >> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dmitriy, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in >> case >> > > of >> > > > > > unexpected failures. >> > > > > > That's not acceptable. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why >> these >> > > tests >> > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you >> > > merged >> > > > > such >> > > > > > changes. >> > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. >> > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be >> > > provided. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> dpav...@apache.org> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. >> > > Please >> > > > > pay >> > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov, >> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you know >> how to do things better. What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but . 100+ no-op still here because tests start failing :)" That's a completely different situation. And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution. A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op handler still required. Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it ok or no. Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is nothing to discuss. Please provide at least some examples with the following template Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY and we will agree or will try to find a better solution. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > Anton, > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is > assumed". > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as > > these tests do test failures. > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you > know > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and > > others. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > > > worse? > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the > fix > > > > fixes. > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback > the > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, > such > > > "100 > > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each > test > > > > group. > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge > without > > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than > > > words > > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which > is not > > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new > handler > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in > case > > > of > > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why > these > > > tests > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > > > merged > > > > > such > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > > > Please > > > > > pay > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please > discuss > > > this > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit > changes > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer > and > > > handle > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail > handler is > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек.
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is assumed". ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as > these tests do test failures. > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you know > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will > be happy if you contribute some improvements later. > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and > others. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > > > Hi Anton, > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > > worse? > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix > > > fixes. > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the > > > changes. > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such > > "100 > > > times copy-paste fix". > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test > > > group. > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without > > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than > > words > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not > > > > clear for others. > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case > > of > > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these > > tests > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > > merged > > > > such > > > > > changes. > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > > Please > > > > pay > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss > > this > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and > > handle > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation > > inside > > > > > the > > > > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them > > with > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks > > reasonable. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default > > > > failure > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as these tests do test failures. Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you know how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me. Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no. If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will be happy if you contribute some improvements later. If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and others. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван : > Hi Anton, > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > worse? > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix > > fixes. > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the > > changes. > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such > "100 > > times copy-paste fix". > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test > > group. > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than > words > > > sometimes. > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not > > > clear for others. > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case > of > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these > tests > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > merged > > > such > > > > changes. > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > provided. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > Please > > > pay > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss > this > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and > handle > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation > inside > > > > the > > > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them > with > > > > > correct > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks > reasonable. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default > > > failure > > > > > > > handler? > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate > and > > > fix > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract > > > classes, > > > > > so, > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical > > > internal > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Ivan, Do you mean massive no-op handler restore patch [1]? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4974/files On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:53 PM Павлухин Иван wrote: > Hi Anton, > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really > worse? > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix > > fixes. > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the > > changes. > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such > "100 > > times copy-paste fix". > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test > > group. > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without > > understanding what it fixes. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than > words > > > sometimes. > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not > > > clear for others. > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > > selection of no-op. > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case > of > > > > unexpected failures. > > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these > tests > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you > merged > > > such > > > > changes. > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be > provided. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. > Please > > > pay > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss > this > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and > handle > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation > inside > > > > the > > > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them > with > > > > > correct > > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks > reasonable. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default > > > failure > > > > > > > handler? > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate > and > > > fix > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract > > > classes, > > > > > so, > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical > > > internal > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected > > > > > failures > > > > > > or > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under > > > > > control). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov < > a...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > > > > > > Could
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hi Anton, Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really worse? As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the harm and does it overweight positive result? And why? ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov : > > Dmitriy, > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix > fixes. > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the > changes. > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such "100 > times copy-paste fix". > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test > group. > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without > understanding what it fixes. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words > > sometimes. > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not > > clear for others. > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > > selection of no-op. > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of > > > unexpected failures. > > > That's not acceptable. > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged > > such > > > changes. > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please > > pay > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside > > > the > > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with > > > > correct > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default > > failure > > > > > > handler? > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and > > fix > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract > > classes, > > > > so, > > > > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical > > internal > > > > > issue > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected > > > > failures > > > > > or > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under > > > > control). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than > > > > "strict > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov < > > > > somefire...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy, That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test properly since I'm not an author or reviewer. But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix fixes. In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the changes. That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such "100 times copy-paste fix". Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test group. P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without understanding what it fixes. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words > sometimes. > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not > clear for others. > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial > selection of no-op. > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Dmitriy, > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of > > unexpected failures. > > That's not acceptable. > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged > such > > changes. > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please > pay > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside > > the > > > > special handler. > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with > > > correct > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default > failure > > > > > handler? > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and > fix > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract > classes, > > > so, > > > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical > internal > > > > issue > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected > > > failures > > > > or > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under > > > control). > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than > > > "strict > > > > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov < > > > somefire...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL > > tests > > > > from > > > > > > > noop > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message > here > > > from > > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words sometimes. No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not clear for others. Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial selection of no-op. If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitriy, > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of > unexpected failures. > That's not acceptable. > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged such > changes. > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > > activated from any pool inside a node. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > > Depends on the test. > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside > the > > > special handler. > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with > > correct > > > fixes. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure > > > > handler? > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix > > > this. > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, > > so, > > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal > > > issue > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected > > failures > > > or > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under > > control). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than > > "strict > > > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov < > > somefire...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch > > will > > > be > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL > tests > > > from > > > > > > noop > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here > > from > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can > > > override > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you > are > > > > > trying > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" < > > > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the > > try-catch > > > > > block, > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > course. > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow > > the > > > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy, As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of unexpected failures. That's not acceptable. As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged such changes. That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix. Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation. What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler. And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is > activated from any pool inside a node. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Dmitriy, > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > > Depends on the test. > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > > > That's not a correct fix. > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the > > special handler. > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with > correct > > fixes. > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure > > > handler? > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix > > this. > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, > so, > > > we have much more affected tests. > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal > > issue > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected > failures > > or > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under > control). > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than > "strict > > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov < > somefire...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch > will > > be > > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests > > from > > > > > noop > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here > from > > > > > saying > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can > > override > > > > > > default > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > > > > trying > > > > > to > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" < > > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the > try-catch > > > > block, > > > > > > of > > > > > > > course. > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow > the > > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap > > it > > > > with > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect > > critical > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests > trigger > > > > > failure > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes NoOp->FailTest+stopNode. Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is activated from any pool inside a node. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitriy, > > >> Which code block will do a throw? > Depends on the test. > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. > > That's not a correct fix. > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the > special handler. > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with correct > fixes. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Dmitri, > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > > Thanks a lot. > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure > > handler? > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix > this. > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so, > > we have much more affected tests. > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal > issue > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures > or > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control). > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict > > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will > be > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests > from > > > > noop > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > > > > saying > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can > override > > > > > default > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" < > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch > > > block, > > > > > of > > > > > > course. > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap > it > > > with > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect > critical > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > > > > failure > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should > go. > > > > That's > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old > > > value > > > > of > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of > 100+ > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitriy, >> Which code block will do a throw? Depends on the test. Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*. That's not a correct fix. In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the special handler. I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with correct fixes. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov wrote: > Hi, > > Dmitri, > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. > Thanks a lot. > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure > handler? > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix this. > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so, > we have much more affected tests. > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal issue > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures or > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control). > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > Dmitrii, > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict > > try-catch with a check"? > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > > wrote: > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from > > > noop > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > > > saying > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > > > > default > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > > trying > > > to > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" < > a...@apache.org> > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch > > block, > > > > of > > > > > course. > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it > > with > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov < > somefire...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > > > failure > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. > > > That's > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old > > value > > > of > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler > was > > > > > >> changed to > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write > > here > > > > or > > > > > >> in the > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hi, Dmitri, The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable. Thanks a lot. But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test? Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure handler? If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix this. I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so, we have much more affected tests. Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal issue occur and there is no need to fallback to noop. Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures or if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control). On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Dmitrii, > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict > try-catch with a check"? > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from > > noop > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > > saying > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov >: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > > > default > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > trying > > to > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch > block, > > > of > > > > course. > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it > with > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov >: > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > >> > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > > failure > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. > > That's > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old > value > > of > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > > > > >> changed to > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write > here > > > or > > > > >> in the > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, If I understood this idea right, try-catch will not work because failure can be thrown into an Ignite thread pool, which catches any exceptions and errors. Which code block will do a throw? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 12:16, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitrii, > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict > try-catch with a check"? > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov > wrote: > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from > > noop > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > > saying > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov >: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > > > default > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are > trying > > to > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch > block, > > > of > > > > course. > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it > with > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov >: > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > >> > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > > failure > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. > > That's > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old > value > > of > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > > > > >> changed to > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write > here > > > or > > > > >> in the > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii, No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict try-catch with a check"? On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov wrote: > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be > less readable than no-op handler. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from > noop > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > saying > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov : > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > > default > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are trying > to > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" > > > написал: > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, > > of > > > course. > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > >> > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > failure > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. > That's > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > >> > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value > of > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > >> > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > >> > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > >> > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > somefire...@gmail.com > > >: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > > > >> changed to > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here > > or > > > >> in the > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be less readable than no-op handler. ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from noop > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from saying > thank you to Dmitry. > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov : > > > Hi all, > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > default > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > This will make test clearer. > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are trying to > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" > > написал: > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, > of > > course. > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > exception. > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > >> Anton, > > >> > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > >> > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > >> > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > >> > > > >> > Sincerely, > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > >> > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > >> > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov >: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > > >> changed to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here > or > > >> in the > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from noop to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from saying thank you to Dmitry. Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov : > Hi all, > > Really, why noop? > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override default > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > This will make test clearer. > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are trying to > improve, isnt'it? > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" > написал: > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of > course. > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > exception. > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > >> Anton, > >> > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's > >> why we need no-op handler here. > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > >> > > >> > Hi Igniters, > >> > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > >> > > >> > > Dmitrii, > >> > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : > >> > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > >> > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > >> changed to > >> > > the > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > >> > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > >> > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or > >> in the > >> > > > ticket [1]. > >> > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hi all, Really, why noop? If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override default one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. This will make test clearer. With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are trying to improve, isnt'it? 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" написал: And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of course. In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the exception. вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitrii, > > The solution is not clear to me. > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > >> Anton, >> >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's >> why we need no-op handler here. >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > >> > Hi Igniters, >> > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : >> > >> > > Dmitrii, >> > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? >> > > >> > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : >> > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! >> > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was >> changed to >> > > the >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. >> > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. >> > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or >> in the >> > > > ticket [1]. >> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of course. In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the exception. вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitrii, > > The solution is not clear to me. > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > >> Anton, >> >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's >> why we need no-op handler here. >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : >> > >> > Hi Igniters, >> > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : >> > >> > > Dmitrii, >> > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? >> > > >> > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : >> > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! >> > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was >> changed to >> > > the >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. >> > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. >> > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or >> in the >> > > > ticket [1]. >> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii, The solution is not clear to me. In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov : > Anton, > > Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure > handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's > why we need no-op handler here. > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of > > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed > to > > > the > > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > > > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > > > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in > the > > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Anton, Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's why we need no-op handler here. вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > Hi Igniters, > > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Dmitrii, > > > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to > > the > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Hi Igniters, BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov : > Dmitrii, > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to > the > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the > > ticket [1]. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > >
Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Dmitrii, Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ NoOpFailureHandlers? вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov : > Hello, Igniters! > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to the > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the > ticket [1]. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 >
