[GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on issue #855: ZOOKEEPER-3310: Add metrics for prep processor
anmolnar commented on issue #855: ZOOKEEPER-3310: Add metrics for prep processor URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/855#issuecomment-490754714 Got it. The counter of processed requested (cnt_)PREP_PROCESS_TIME is updated in the `run()` method _after_ `pRequest()`. `pRequest()` calls nextRequestProcessor.process() which is mocked to update the latch for synchronization. As a consequence the test could end before the counter is updated. To fix this I suggest to move the update of the counter inside the pRequest() call before `nextRequestProcessor.process(). It will be more accurate anyway. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3358) Make Snappy The Default Snapshot Compression Algorithm
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3358?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16836100#comment-16836100 ] Fangmin Lv commented on ZOOKEEPER-3358: --- [~belugabehr] When we contributed that back, most of our prod ensembles are using snappy, it's quite helpful. But keep in mind, if user is storing binary data like gzipped data, then the compress ratio could be very small and it actually wastes CPU cycle to do the compress/decompress. This is why we keep the default behavior as before since we don't know what users are storing, and it may change the behavior. > Make Snappy The Default Snapshot Compression Algorithm > -- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3358 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3358 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: server >Affects Versions: 3.6.0 >Reporter: David Mollitor >Priority: Major > Fix For: 3.6.0 > > > Now that SnapShots are compressed, thanks to [ZOOKEEPER-3179], make the > default algorithm Snappy compression. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3352) Use LevelDB For Backend
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3352?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16836096#comment-16836096 ] Fangmin Lv commented on ZOOKEEPER-3352: --- Had an intern done some prototype with me by building the ZooKeeper on RocksDB, the intention is to store more data, use incremental snapshot to reduce the cost with LSM, reduce the GC effort and data loading time, etc. It also avoids fuzzy snapshot which is pretty error-prone and caused lots of consistency bugs in ZK. But it's likely won't give us the same throughput as what we have now with in memory data tree and append only txn file. Currently, we only moved snapshot to RocksDB, the plan is to remove the in memory data tree as well, but only cache things like children structure, metadata to retain txn prepare and read throughput, etc. We tried to keep the file based txn file, but disable the WAL in RocksDB, since we cannot see obvious benefit for now. This is still a prototype, and we didn't have time in the last year to spend more effort there, but it will be an interesting try to see how it goes when ZooKeeper meet other backend. [~belugabehr] what's the status of this project on your side, is it a thought or you already have something? > Use LevelDB For Backend > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3352 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3352 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: server >Reporter: David Mollitor >Assignee: David Mollitor >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 4.0.0 > > > Use LevelDB for managing data stored in ZK (transaction logs and snapshots). > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6779669/does-leveldb-support-java -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on issue #855: ZOOKEEPER-3310: Add metrics for prep processor
anmolnar commented on issue #855: ZOOKEEPER-3310: Add metrics for prep processor URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/855#issuecomment-490750148 @jhuan31 Looks like a new flaky test has been introduced by this patch: https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/512/testReport/junit/org.apache.zookeeper.server/PrepRequestProcessorMetricsTest/testPrepRequestProcessorMetrics/ Would you please create a de-flaky jira, I'll try to look into the test today why it become flaky? Thanks. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
Re: why not disable sync API in libzkst.a?
Hi Shuxin,
What's the zk client version you are testing? Sync apis were removed from c
client in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-761, but it's
only done for 3.5.3 and master branch only. There was a discussion in JIRA
regarding whether or not to do the same for 3.4 branch which never
concluded. Feel free to reopen the JIRA and submit a patch for 3.4 branch.
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:24 PM Shuxin Yang
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to C API lib. I accidentally use single-thread lib (i.e.
> libzkst.a) and it took me quit a while before I realize all sync
> functions in the libzkst.a is not usable at all. I'm wondering why not
> just disable them in libztst.a. It would otherwise be pretty confusing
> and error-prone.
>
> Take zoo_get_children() as an example, it always return ZOK, and 0
> children. This function in turn calls zoo_wget_children_() which is
> excerpted bellow. The wait_sync_completion() at line 3657 actually does
> nothing in the single-thread version, meaning this function simply
> return to the caller without waiting for the job done.
>
> Thanks
>
> Shuxin
>
>
> --
>
> 3646 static int zoo_wget_children_(...)
>
> 3650 struct sync_completion *sc = alloc_sync_completion();
>
>
>
> 3655 rc= zoo_awget_children (zh, path, watcher, watcherCtx,
> SYNCHRONOUS_MARKER, sc);
> 3656 if(rc==ZOK){
> 3657 wait_sync_completion(sc);
> 3658 rc = sc->rc;
> 3659 if (rc == 0) {
> 3660 if (strings) {
> 3661 *strings = sc->u.strs2;
> 3662 } else {
> 3663 deallocate_String_vector(>u.strs2);
> 3664 }
> 3665 }
> 3666 }
> 3667 free_sync_completion(sc);
> 3668 return rc;
> 3669 }
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author +1. The commit script would have to be updated to incorporate this feature. >> if someone participate in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need include his/her name We already do this when commit a change so reviewers get credits as well and we can keep it this way unless there is a better approach. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:23 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Yes, it is a good idea to have a common practice for tracking the original > author. > > IMHO this is up to the person who is picking up an old patch, it is his own > responsibility. > > IIRC In Bookkeeper we keep the original author of the patch if the patch is > a straight port from another private company fork with minimal changes. > > Having a Co-author is good from my side. I am not sure we can force it > > My 2cents > > Enrico > > Il mer 8 mag 2019, 19:31 Brian Nixon ha > scritto: > > > +1 to the idea of multiple authors, particularly for rescued code > > > > -1 to including all reviewers in the commit proper, this information is > > easily enough found from poking at the mail archive where "original > author" > > requires studying a ticket on jira > > > > awesome idea! > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:32 AM Norbert Kalmar > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Sorry everyone for the multiple emails... > > > So, I get your suggestion now Maoling, sorry for the confusion. > > > We already indicate the reviewer if it's from an apache email, as it > > looks > > > to me. (Doesn't have to be ZooKeeper committer). We should add external > > > emails as well. > > > > > > So I just clarified this with Andor, looks like this is a manual entry > > (the > > > names/emails itself) during the commit (script). > > > > > > Let's hear what others think :) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Norbert Kalmar > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." > > > line. > > > > > > > > All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a > good > > > >> idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) > > > >> I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. > > > >> First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I > > > think > > > >> the commit script the committers are using can be modified to > include > > > it. > > > >> Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for > committers. > > > >> My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this > > > >> information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is > > Github > > > >> tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers > > > >> information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever > reason, > > > there > > > >> is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. > And > > > this > > > >> would also make the commit message more "bloated". > > > >> > > > >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just > > have > > > >> my concerns mentioned above. > > > >> > > > >> Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Norbert > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao < > > > maoling199210...@sina.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the > > > >>> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone > > > participate > > > >>> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we > all > > > need > > > >>> include his/her name? > > > >>> > > > >>> - Original Message - > > > >>> From: Norbert Kalmar > > > >>> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > > >>> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages > > > >>> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Devs, > > > >>> I've got this idea from HBase. > > > >>> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author > > for > > > >>> any > > > >>> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks > to > > > >>> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change > freely > > > or > > > >>> no > > > >>> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull > > > request, > > > >>> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method > > how > > > to > > > >>> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. > > > >>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way > > of > > > >>> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details > > here: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors > > > >>> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, > > but > > > >>> it's a
Re: [ANNOUNCE] New ZooKeeper PMC member: Andor Molnar
Congratulations, Andor! On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Brian Nixon wrote: > Awesome! Congrats, Andor, you've been doing great work! > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:31 AM Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > Kudos Andor! > > > > Patrick > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:07 AM Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > > > Congratulations! > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > Il lun 29 apr 2019, 10:40 Norbert Kalmar > > > ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > Congratulations Andor, well deserved! > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Flavio Junqueira > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Apache ZooKeeper PMC recently invited Andor to join the PMC and > > he > > > > has > > > > > accepted. Andor has made some significant contributions to the > > project, > > > > > including driving releases. We are looking forward to even greater > > > > > contributions from Andor now as part of the PMC. > > > > > > > > > > Congratulations and welcome aboard Andor! > > > > > > > > > > -Flavio on behalf of the Apache ZooKeeper PMC > > > > > > > > > >
[GitHub] [zookeeper] jhuan31 commented on issue #933: ZOOKEEPER-3379: De-flaky test in Quorum Packet Metrics
jhuan31 commented on issue #933: ZOOKEEPER-3379: De-flaky test in Quorum Packet Metrics URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/933#issuecomment-490712538 CC @anmolnar This addresses your comment for JIRA 3305 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] lvfangmin commented on issue #922: ZOOKEEPER-3361: Add multi version of getChildren request
lvfangmin commented on issue #922: ZOOKEEPER-3361: Add multi version of getChildren request URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/922#issuecomment-490703229 Is it cleaner to add a new getChildren batch API instead of adding a fake txn in multi-op? Any use case and benefit of having getChildren with other write ops? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3364) Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835988#comment-16835988
]
Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-3364:
---
SUCCESS: Integrated in Jenkins build Zookeeper-trunk-single-thread #348 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Zookeeper-trunk-single-thread/348/])
ZOOKEEPER-3364: Compile with strict options in order to check code (andor: rev
999c834714aba859a96ba32d02e66fb63e70ab35)
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/auth/QuorumKerberosHostBasedAuthTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/CnxManagerTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/watch/WatcherOrBitSetTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/watch/WatchManagerFactory.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/JUnit4ZKTestRunner.java
* (edit) pom.xml
* (edit) zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/ZKTestCase.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReconfigMisconfigTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/metric/AvgMinMaxCounter.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReconfigTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumPeerMainTest.java
* (edit) zookeeper-contrib/pom.xml
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/metrics/impl/MetricsProviderBootstrap.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/auth/MiniKdc.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/FourLetterWordsTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/LoadFromLogTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/InvalidSnapshotTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/SyncCallTest.java
> Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
> --
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-3364
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
>Affects Versions: 3.6.0
>Reporter: Enrico Olivelli
>Assignee: Enrico Olivelli
>Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 3.6.0
>
> Time Spent: 7h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> In order to dismiss old QA tests based on ant (ZOOKEEPER-3351) we have to
> enforce code quality by activating some falgs on javac at build time, namely:
>
> {code:java}
>
> -Werror
> -Xlint:deprecation
> -Xlint:unchecked
>
> -Xpkginfo:always
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[GitHub] [zookeeper] lvfangmin commented on issue #843: ZOOKEEPER-3296: Explicitly closing the sslsocket when it failed handshake to prevent issue where peers cannot join quorum
lvfangmin commented on issue #843: ZOOKEEPER-3296: Explicitly closing the sslsocket when it failed handshake to prevent issue where peers cannot join quorum URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/843#issuecomment-490696659 @anmolnar do you mind to take a look and merge this if it looks good to you? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3364) Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835937#comment-16835937
]
Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-3364:
---
FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build ZooKeeper-trunk #512 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/512/])
ZOOKEEPER-3364: Compile with strict options in order to check code (andor: rev
999c834714aba859a96ba32d02e66fb63e70ab35)
* (edit) zookeeper-contrib/pom.xml
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/metrics/impl/MetricsProviderBootstrap.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/watch/WatcherOrBitSetTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/auth/QuorumKerberosHostBasedAuthTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/SyncCallTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/CnxManagerTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/LoadFromLogTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/JUnit4ZKTestRunner.java
* (edit) zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/ZKTestCase.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/FourLetterWordsTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/metric/AvgMinMaxCounter.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReconfigTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/InvalidSnapshotTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/watch/WatchManagerFactory.java
* (edit) pom.xml
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/auth/MiniKdc.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReconfigMisconfigTest.java
* (edit)
zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumPeerMainTest.java
> Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
> --
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-3364
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
>Affects Versions: 3.6.0
>Reporter: Enrico Olivelli
>Assignee: Enrico Olivelli
>Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 3.6.0
>
> Time Spent: 7h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> In order to dismiss old QA tests based on ant (ZOOKEEPER-3351) we have to
> enforce code quality by activating some falgs on javac at build time, namely:
>
> {code:java}
>
> -Werror
> -Xlint:deprecation
> -Xlint:unchecked
>
> -Xpkginfo:always
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3362) Create a simple checkstyle file
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835936#comment-16835936 ] Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-3362: --- FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build ZooKeeper-trunk #512 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/512/]) ZOOKEEPER-3362: Create a simple checkstyle file (andor: rev cb36d5a95fca6bc098890bde517ba76901adf43a) * (edit) zookeeper-assembly/src/main/assembly/source-package.xml * (edit) .travis.yml * (add) checkstyle.xml * (edit) zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/src/main/java/com/nitido/utils/toaster/Toaster.java * (add) checkstyleSuppressions.xml * (edit) zookeeper-client/zookeeper-client-c/pom.xml * (edit) pom.xml > Create a simple checkstyle file > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3362 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Task > Components: build >Affects Versions: 3.6.0 >Reporter: Enrico Olivelli >Assignee: Enrico Olivelli >Priority: Major > Labels: pull-request-available > Fix For: 3.6.0 > > Time Spent: 3h 50m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Create a basic checkstyle file, in order to cover the minimal check on > @author tags. > This is needed in order to drop old ANT based precommit job (see > ZOOKEEPER-3351) > We will not remove legacy checkstyle configuration file in > zookeeper-server/src/test/resources/checkstyle.xml because it is referred by > ANT build.xml files (even if we are not actually using that target). > This task won't add a complete checkstyle configuration with usual checks > because it would imply almost a change at every .java in the codebase. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
ZooKeeper-trunk - Build # 512 - Failure
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/512/ ### ## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE ### [...truncated 189.07 KB...] [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.SessionTrackerCheckTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.09 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.SessionTrackerCheckTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.SessionUpgradeTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 15.804 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.SessionTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.StandaloneTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.57 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.StandaloneTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.StatTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.136 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.StatTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.StaticHostProviderTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 18.167 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.SessionUpgradeTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.StringUtilTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.077 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.StringUtilTest [junit] Tests run: 26, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.729 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.StaticHostProviderTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.SyncCallTest in thread 3 [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.TruncateTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.792 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.SyncCallTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatchEventWhenAutoResetTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 5.999 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.TruncateTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatchedEventTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.079 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatchedEventTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatcherFuncTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.142 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatcherFuncTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatcherTest in thread 2 [junit] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 17.712 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatchEventWhenAutoResetTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.X509AuthTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.09 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.X509AuthTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.ZkDatabaseCorruptionTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 7.378 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.ZkDatabaseCorruptionTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.test.ZooKeeperQuotaTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.794 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.ZooKeeperQuotaTest [junit] Running org.apache.zookeeper.util.PemReaderTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 64, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 3.688 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.util.PemReaderTest [junit] Running org.apache.jute.BinaryInputArchiveTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.169 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.jute.BinaryInputArchiveTest [junit] Running org.apache.jute.UtilsTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 5, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.078 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.jute.UtilsTest [junit] Running org.apache.jute.XmlInputArchiveTest in thread 3 [junit] Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.171 sec, Thread: 3, Class: org.apache.jute.XmlInputArchiveTest [junit] Tests run: 8, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 30.807 sec, Thread: 2, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.WatcherTest [junit] Tests run: 109, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 344.371 sec, Thread: 1, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.NioNettySuiteTest [junit] Tests run: 13, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 255.115 sec, Thread: 4, Class: org.apache.zookeeper.test.ReconfigTest fail.build.on.test.failure: BUILD FAILED
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3362) Create a simple checkstyle file
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835914#comment-16835914 ] Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-3362: --- FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build Zookeeper-trunk-single-thread #347 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/Zookeeper-trunk-single-thread/347/]) ZOOKEEPER-3362: Create a simple checkstyle file (andor: rev cb36d5a95fca6bc098890bde517ba76901adf43a) * (edit) pom.xml * (edit) zookeeper-assembly/src/main/assembly/source-package.xml * (add) checkstyleSuppressions.xml * (edit) zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/src/main/java/com/nitido/utils/toaster/Toaster.java * (add) checkstyle.xml * (edit) zookeeper-client/zookeeper-client-c/pom.xml * (edit) .travis.yml > Create a simple checkstyle file > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3362 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Task > Components: build >Affects Versions: 3.6.0 >Reporter: Enrico Olivelli >Assignee: Enrico Olivelli >Priority: Major > Labels: pull-request-available > Fix For: 3.6.0 > > Time Spent: 3h 50m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Create a basic checkstyle file, in order to cover the minimal check on > @author tags. > This is needed in order to drop old ANT based precommit job (see > ZOOKEEPER-3351) > We will not remove legacy checkstyle configuration file in > zookeeper-server/src/test/resources/checkstyle.xml because it is referred by > ANT build.xml files (even if we are not actually using that target). > This task won't add a complete checkstyle configuration with usual checks > because it would imply almost a change at every .java in the codebase. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on issue #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
anmolnar commented on issue #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/910#issuecomment-490631264 Committed to master branch. Thanks @eolivelli ! This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[jira] [Resolved] (ZOOKEEPER-3364) Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andor Molnar resolved ZOOKEEPER-3364.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Issue resolved by pull request 910
[https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/910]
> Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
> --
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-3364
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3364
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
>Affects Versions: 3.6.0
>Reporter: Enrico Olivelli
>Assignee: Enrico Olivelli
>Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 3.6.0
>
> Time Spent: 7h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> In order to dismiss old QA tests based on ant (ZOOKEEPER-3351) we have to
> enforce code quality by activating some falgs on javac at build time, namely:
>
> {code:java}
>
> -Werror
> -Xlint:deprecation
> -Xlint:unchecked
>
> -Xpkginfo:always
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[GitHub] [zookeeper] asfgit closed pull request #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
asfgit closed pull request #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/910 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
Yes, it is a good idea to have a common practice for tracking the original author. IMHO this is up to the person who is picking up an old patch, it is his own responsibility. IIRC In Bookkeeper we keep the original author of the patch if the patch is a straight port from another private company fork with minimal changes. Having a Co-author is good from my side. I am not sure we can force it My 2cents Enrico Il mer 8 mag 2019, 19:31 Brian Nixon ha scritto: > +1 to the idea of multiple authors, particularly for rescued code > > -1 to including all reviewers in the commit proper, this information is > easily enough found from poking at the mail archive where "original author" > requires studying a ticket on jira > > awesome idea! > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:32 AM Norbert Kalmar > > wrote: > > > Sorry everyone for the multiple emails... > > So, I get your suggestion now Maoling, sorry for the confusion. > > We already indicate the reviewer if it's from an apache email, as it > looks > > to me. (Doesn't have to be ZooKeeper committer). We should add external > > emails as well. > > > > So I just clarified this with Andor, looks like this is a manual entry > (the > > names/emails itself) during the commit (script). > > > > Let's hear what others think :) > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Norbert Kalmar > > wrote: > > > > > Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." > > line. > > > > > > All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a good > > >> idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) > > >> I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. > > >> First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I > > think > > >> the commit script the committers are using can be modified to include > > it. > > >> Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for committers. > > >> My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this > > >> information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is > Github > > >> tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers > > >> information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever reason, > > there > > >> is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. And > > this > > >> would also make the commit message more "bloated". > > >> > > >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just > have > > >> my concerns mentioned above. > > >> > > >> Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Norbert > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao < > > maoling199210...@sina.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the > > >>> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone > > participate > > >>> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all > > need > > >>> include his/her name? > > >>> > > >>> - Original Message - > > >>> From: Norbert Kalmar > > >>> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > >>> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages > > >>> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 > > >>> > > >>> Hi Devs, > > >>> I've got this idea from HBase. > > >>> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author > for > > >>> any > > >>> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to > > >>> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely > > or > > >>> no > > >>> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull > > request, > > >>> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method > how > > to > > >>> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. > > >>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way > of > > >>> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details > here: > > >>> > > >>> > > > https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors > > >>> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, > but > > >>> it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this > could > > >>> give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a > > >>> guideline > > >>> in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. > > >>> I can update the guide at > > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute > > if > > >>> the reception is positive. > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Norbert > > >>> > > >> > > >
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
+1 to the idea of multiple authors, particularly for rescued code -1 to including all reviewers in the commit proper, this information is easily enough found from poking at the mail archive where "original author" requires studying a ticket on jira awesome idea! On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:32 AM Norbert Kalmar wrote: > Sorry everyone for the multiple emails... > So, I get your suggestion now Maoling, sorry for the confusion. > We already indicate the reviewer if it's from an apache email, as it looks > to me. (Doesn't have to be ZooKeeper committer). We should add external > emails as well. > > So I just clarified this with Andor, looks like this is a manual entry (the > names/emails itself) during the commit (script). > > Let's hear what others think :) > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Norbert Kalmar > wrote: > > > Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." > line. > > > > All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a good > >> idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) > >> I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. > >> First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I > think > >> the commit script the committers are using can be modified to include > it. > >> Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for committers. > >> My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this > >> information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is Github > >> tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers > >> information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever reason, > there > >> is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. And > this > >> would also make the commit message more "bloated". > >> > >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just have > >> my concerns mentioned above. > >> > >> Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao < > maoling199210...@sina.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the > >>> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone > participate > >>> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all > need > >>> include his/her name? > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: Norbert Kalmar > >>> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > >>> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages > >>> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 > >>> > >>> Hi Devs, > >>> I've got this idea from HBase. > >>> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for > >>> any > >>> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to > >>> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely > or > >>> no > >>> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull > request, > >>> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how > to > >>> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. > >>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of > >>> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: > >>> > >>> > https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors > >>> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but > >>> it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could > >>> give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a > >>> guideline > >>> in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. > >>> I can update the guide at > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute > if > >>> the reception is positive. > >>> Regards, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >> >
[GitHub] [zookeeper] eolivelli closed pull request #918: ZOOKEEPER-3366: Pluggable metrics system for ZooKeeper - move remaining metrics to MetricsProvider
eolivelli closed pull request #918: ZOOKEEPER-3366: Pluggable metrics system for ZooKeeper - move remaining metrics to MetricsProvider URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/918 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] eolivelli opened a new pull request #918: ZOOKEEPER-3366: Pluggable metrics system for ZooKeeper - move remaining metrics to MetricsProvider
eolivelli opened a new pull request #918: ZOOKEEPER-3366: Pluggable metrics system for ZooKeeper - move remaining metrics to MetricsProvider URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/918 Migrate all remaining metrics to MetricsProvider. We are introducing now Gauges which are callbacks to be called when the Provider needs to publish current values. As during the lifecycle of a ZK server process we can have several ZooKeeperServer instances, depending on the role of the current process, we have to clean up unused Gauges, this is different from the old approach in which in 4lw and on http admin API we had hard coded metrics, with multiple 'instanceof' conditions. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] eolivelli commented on issue #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality
eolivelli commented on issue #910: ZOOKEEPER-3364 Compile with strict options in order to check code quality URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/910#issuecomment-490558063 retest ant build This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file
anmolnar commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/909#issuecomment-490542616 Thanks, committed to master. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[jira] [Resolved] (ZOOKEEPER-3362) Create a simple checkstyle file
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Andor Molnar resolved ZOOKEEPER-3362. - Resolution: Fixed Issue resolved by pull request 909 [https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/909] > Create a simple checkstyle file > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3362 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3362 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Task > Components: build >Affects Versions: 3.6.0 >Reporter: Enrico Olivelli >Assignee: Enrico Olivelli >Priority: Major > Labels: pull-request-available > Fix For: 3.6.0 > > Time Spent: 3.5h > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Create a basic checkstyle file, in order to cover the minimal check on > @author tags. > This is needed in order to drop old ANT based precommit job (see > ZOOKEEPER-3351) > We will not remove legacy checkstyle configuration file in > zookeeper-server/src/test/resources/checkstyle.xml because it is referred by > ANT build.xml files (even if we are not actually using that target). > This task won't add a complete checkstyle configuration with usual checks > because it would imply almost a change at every .java in the codebase. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[GitHub] [zookeeper] asfgit closed pull request #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file
asfgit closed pull request #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/909 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file
anmolnar commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/909#issuecomment-490536056 @eolivelli Why isn't the new checkstyle file not the same as the ant version? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [zookeeper] eolivelli commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file
eolivelli commented on issue #909: ZOOKEEPER-3362 Create a simple checkstyle file URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/909#issuecomment-490538183 @anmolnar thank you for checking this patch > @eolivelli Why isn't the new checkstyle file not the same as the ant version? This new file is very simple and it mostly checks only for "author" javadoc tags it is the same check we are doing in the precommit ANT based build. Current "checkstyle" file is not really used and we would have thousands of failures. It will be an hard work to make the code base compliant with such file (I can help doing it but it will take weeks and many patches) So my approach is to: - introduce a new checkstyle file (it will grow in the future) - do what is needed to be able to drop the ANT based precommit script This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." line. All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar wrote: > Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a good > idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) > I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. > First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I think > the commit script the committers are using can be modified to include it. > Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for committers. > My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this information. > At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is Github tracks authors > of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers information? If you > just want to check reviewers for whatever reason, there is a filter for > that already on github, in the Pull Request view. And this would also make > the commit message more "bloated". > > I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just have > my concerns mentioned above. > > Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. > > Regards, > Norbert > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao > wrote: > >> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the >> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone participate >> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need >> include his/her name? >> >> - Original Message - >> From: Norbert Kalmar >> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org >> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages >> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 >> >> Hi Devs, >> I've got this idea from HBase. >> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for any >> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to >> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely or >> no >> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull request, >> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how to >> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. >> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of >> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: >> >> https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors >> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but >> it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could >> give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a guideline >> in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. >> I can update the guide at >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute if >> the reception is positive. >> Regards, >> Norbert >> >
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
Sorry everyone for the multiple emails... So, I get your suggestion now Maoling, sorry for the confusion. We already indicate the reviewer if it's from an apache email, as it looks to me. (Doesn't have to be ZooKeeper committer). We should add external emails as well. So I just clarified this with Andor, looks like this is a manual entry (the names/emails itself) during the commit (script). Let's hear what others think :) On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Norbert Kalmar wrote: > Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." line. > > All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar > wrote: > >> Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a good >> idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) >> I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. >> First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I think >> the commit script the committers are using can be modified to include it. >> Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for committers. >> My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this >> information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is Github >> tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers >> information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever reason, there >> is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. And this >> would also make the commit message more "bloated". >> >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just have >> my concerns mentioned above. >> >> Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. >> >> Regards, >> Norbert >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao >> wrote: >> >>> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the >>> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone participate >>> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need >>> include his/her name? >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Norbert Kalmar >>> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org >>> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages >>> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 >>> >>> Hi Devs, >>> I've got this idea from HBase. >>> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for >>> any >>> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to >>> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely or >>> no >>> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull request, >>> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how to >>> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. >>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of >>> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: >>> >>> https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors >>> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but >>> it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could >>> give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a >>> guideline >>> in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. >>> I can update the guide at >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute if >>> the reception is positive. >>> Regards, >>> Norbert >>> >>
[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3381) Add multi watchregistration support for multi getChildren
Peter Szecsi created ZOOKEEPER-3381:
---
Summary: Add multi watchregistration support for multi getChildren
Key: ZOOKEEPER-3381
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3381
Project: ZooKeeper
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: java client, tests
Affects Versions: 3.6.0
Reporter: Peter Szecsi
Assignee: Peter Szecsi
Currently, the client API only supports to register one watch attached to one
node for a single request. However, for complete support of the multi version
of the {{GetChildren}} this functionality needs to be extended.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a good idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I think the commit script the committers are using can be modified to include it. Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for committers. My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is Github tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever reason, there is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. And this would also make the commit message more "bloated". I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just have my concerns mentioned above. Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. Regards, Norbert On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao wrote: > +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the sign-off > of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone participate in the > review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need include > his/her name? > > - Original Message - > From: Norbert Kalmar > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages > Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 > > Hi Devs, > I've got this idea from HBase. > So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for any > reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to > continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely or no > reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull request, > and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how to > indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. > My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of > attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: > https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors > I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but > it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could > give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a guideline > in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. > I can update the guide at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute if > the reception is positive. > Regards, > Norbert >
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3301) Enforce the quota limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835582#comment-16835582 ] David Mollitor commented on ZOOKEEPER-3301: --- Also be sure to take a look at [ZOOKEEPER-3347] > Enforce the quota limit > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3301 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: maoling >Priority: Major > > We need a complete quota feature, not just the printing the warning logs > which is a bit chicken ribs. > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 18] setquota -n 2 /quota_test > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 19] create /quota_test/child_1 > Created /quota_test/child_1 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 20] create /quota_test/child_2 > Created /quota_test/child_2 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 21] create /quota_test/child_3 > Created /quota_test/child_3 > look at the following logs: > 2019-03-07 11:22:36,680 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=3 limit=2 > 2019-03-07 11:22:41,861 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=4 limit=2 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
Re: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
+1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone participate in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need include his/her name? - Original Message - From: Norbert Kalmar To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 Hi Devs, I've got this idea from HBase. So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for any reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely or no reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull request, and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how to indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a guideline in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. I can update the guide at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute if the reception is positive. Regards, Norbert
[jira] [Updated] (ZOOKEEPER-3301) Enforce the quota limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] maoling updated ZOOKEEPER-3301: --- Summary: Enforce the quota limit (was: do a hard constraint on the "setquota",make it can really control the data size and child counts of one node.) > Enforce the quota limit > --- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3301 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: maoling >Priority: Major > > We need a complete quota feature, not just the printing the warning logs > which is a bit chicken ribs. > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 18] setquota -n 2 /quota_test > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 19] create /quota_test/child_1 > Created /quota_test/child_1 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 20] create /quota_test/child_2 > Created /quota_test/child_2 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 21] create /quota_test/child_3 > Created /quota_test/child_3 > look at the following logs: > 2019-03-07 11:22:36,680 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=3 limit=2 > 2019-03-07 11:22:41,861 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=4 limit=2 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-3301) do a hard constraint on the "setquota",make it can really control the data size and child counts of one node.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835538#comment-16835538 ] maoling commented on ZOOKEEPER-3301: find another issue: [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 6] create /you Created /you [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 7] create /you/quota Created /you/quota [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 8] set /you/quota data [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 9] create /you/quota/data data Created /you/quota/data [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 10] setquota -b 5 /you/quota fuck---code:NONODE fuck---code:NONODE [zk: 127.0.0.1:2180(CONNECTED) 11] set /you/quota/data newdata 2019-05-08 20:07:45,027 [myid:] - WARN [SyncThread:0:NIOServerCnxn@699] - Unexpected exception. Destruction averted. java.lang.NullPointerException at org.apache.jute.BinaryOutputArchive.writeRecord(BinaryOutputArchive.java:123) at org.apache.zookeeper.proto.SetDataResponse.serialize(SetDataResponse.java:41) at org.apache.jute.BinaryOutputArchive.writeRecord(BinaryOutputArchive.java:123) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.ServerCnxn.serializeRecord(ServerCnxn.java:119) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.ServerCnxn.serialize(ServerCnxn.java:145) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.sendResponse(NIOServerCnxn.java:696) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.ServerCnxn.sendResponse(ServerCnxn.java:112) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.FinalRequestProcessor.processRequest(FinalRequestProcessor.java:567) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.SyncRequestProcessor.flush(SyncRequestProcessor.java:184) at org.apache.zookeeper.server.SyncRequestProcessor.run(SyncRequestProcessor.java:115) > do a hard constraint on the "setquota",make it can really control the data > size and child counts of one node. > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-3301 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: maoling >Priority: Major > > We need a complete quota feature, not just the printing the warning logs > which is a bit chicken ribs. > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 18] setquota -n 2 /quota_test > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 19] create /quota_test/child_1 > Created /quota_test/child_1 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 20] create /quota_test/child_2 > Created /quota_test/child_2 > [zk: localhost:2181(CONNECTED) 21] create /quota_test/child_3 > Created /quota_test/child_3 > look at the following logs: > 2019-03-07 11:22:36,680 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=3 limit=2 > 2019-03-07 11:22:41,861 [myid:1] - WARN [SyncThread:0:DataTree@374] - Quota > exceeded: /quota_test count=4 limit=2 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages
Hi Devs, I've got this idea from HBase. So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author for any reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks to continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change freely or no reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull request, and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method how to indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way of attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details here: https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, but it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this could give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a guideline in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. I can update the guide at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute if the reception is positive. Regards, Norbert
