[jira] [Commented] (OAK-10560) Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17789250#comment-17789250 ] Hudson commented on OAK-10560: -- Previously failing build now is OK. Passed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1288|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1288/] [console log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1288/console] > Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed > -- > > Key: OAK-10560 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk > #1285|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/] > [console > log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-10563) Document mapping of actions to privileges
Angela Schreiber created OAK-10563: -- Summary: Document mapping of actions to privileges Key: OAK-10563 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10563 Project: Jackrabbit Oak Issue Type: Wish Components: doc Reporter: Angela Schreiber Assignee: Angela Schreiber -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-10562) document-store: improve control over custom clocks set by tests
Julian Reschke created OAK-10562:
Summary: document-store: improve control over custom clocks set by
tests
Key: OAK-10562
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10562
Project: Jackrabbit Oak
Issue Type: Task
Components: documentmk, test
Reporter: Julian Reschke
Assignee: Julian Reschke
We currently allow tests to provide custom clocks for {{Revision}} and
{{ClusterNodeInfo}}.
This is problematic if they are reset properly at the end of a test, because
then *other* tests can start to behave strangely.
Proposal: refuse to set a custom clock when one is already set, and report
where is was set.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-10560) Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17789204#comment-17789204 ] Hudson commented on OAK-10560: -- Previously failing build now is OK. Passed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1287|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1287/] [console log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1287/console] > Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed > -- > > Key: OAK-10560 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk > #1285|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/] > [console > log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-10561) Avoid leakage between tests
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Stefan Egli updated OAK-10561: -- Description: As noticed eg in OAK-10559 it seems certain data can leak between tests. Eg static objects such as Clock (indirectly through Revision.newRevision) or System properties. A test could be improperly teared down and eg leave background threads running that access eg Clock. As an extension of this : we could try running tests in parallel to encourage misbehaving tests to fail was:As noticed eg in OAK-10559 it seems certain data can leak between tests. Eg static objects such as Clock (indirectly through Revision.newRevision) or System properties. A test could be improperly teared down and eg leave background threads running that access eg Clock. > Avoid leakage between tests > --- > > Key: OAK-10561 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10561 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: documentmk >Reporter: Stefan Egli >Priority: Major > > As noticed eg in OAK-10559 it seems certain data can leak between tests. Eg > static objects such as Clock (indirectly through Revision.newRevision) or > System properties. A test could be improperly teared down and eg leave > background threads running that access eg Clock. > As an extension of this : we could try running tests in parallel to encourage > misbehaving tests to fail -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-10561) Avoid leakage between tests
Stefan Egli created OAK-10561: - Summary: Avoid leakage between tests Key: OAK-10561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10561 Project: Jackrabbit Oak Issue Type: Bug Components: documentmk Reporter: Stefan Egli As noticed eg in OAK-10559 it seems certain data can leak between tests. Eg static objects such as Clock (indirectly through Revision.newRevision) or System properties. A test could be improperly teared down and eg leave background threads running that access eg Clock. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-10560) Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17789114#comment-17789114 ] Hudson commented on OAK-10560: -- Previously failing build now is OK. Passed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1286|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1286/] [console log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1286/console] > Build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 failed > -- > > Key: OAK-10560 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10560 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk #1285 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit/jackrabbit-oak-trunk > #1285|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/] > [console > log|https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit/job/jackrabbit-oak-trunk/1285/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Resolved] (OAK-10558) ElasticReliabilityTest is flaky
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10558?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Fabrizio Fortino resolved OAK-10558. Fix Version/s: 1.60.0 Resolution: Fixed > ElasticReliabilityTest is flaky > --- > > Key: OAK-10558 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10558 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Task > Components: elastic-search >Reporter: Fabrizio Fortino >Assignee: Fabrizio Fortino >Priority: Major > Fix For: 1.60.0 > > > ElasticReliabilityTest has become flaky lately. This might be related to the > recent removal of the RHLC (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10539). > > We are going to: > * Ignore the test for the time being to avoid CI failures > * Investigate failure reasons and fix the underlying problem > * Re-enable test -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-10559) Suspected flakyness in LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10559?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17789056#comment-17789056
]
Stefan Egli commented on OAK-10559:
---
* second https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/1230
* third https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/1231
* fourth https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/1232
> Suspected flakyness in LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT
> --
>
> Key: OAK-10559
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10559
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: documentmk
>Reporter: Stefan Egli
>Assignee: Stefan Egli
>Priority: Major
>
> Following test failure in LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT was witnessed:
> {noformat}
> 18:31:23 [ERROR]
> randomized(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT)
> Time elapsed: 0.586 s <<< ERROR!
> 18:31:23 org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.DocumentStoreException:
> Configured cluster node id 1 already in use: needs recovery and was unable to
> perform it myself
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.ClusterNodeInfo.createInstance(ClusterNodeInfo.java:629)
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.ClusterNodeInfo.getInstance(ClusterNodeInfo.java:471)
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.DocumentNodeStore.(DocumentNodeStore.java:607)
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.DocumentNodeStoreBuilder.build(DocumentNodeStoreBuilder.java:176)
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.DocumentMK$Builder.getNodeStore(DocumentMK.java:481)
> 18:31:23 at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.document.LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT.checkStore(LastRevRecoveryRandomizedIT.java:262)
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-10542) resolution of _deleted value ignores split docs in certain cases
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10542?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17789023#comment-17789023 ] Julian Reschke commented on OAK-10542: -- trunk: [84b9c5999a|https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/commit/84b9c5999a712b297b12e7ab51d6061d224109a8] [0ba9cc4f9d|https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/commit/0ba9cc4f9daa4065da754cf120ca41027f3d9c58] > resolution of _deleted value ignores split docs in certain cases > > > Key: OAK-10542 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-10542 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: documentmk >Reporter: Stefan Egli >Assignee: Stefan Egli >Priority: Major > Fix For: 1.60.0 > > > When a document grows too large, part of it is split into previous documents. > That can include revisions of the "_deleted" property. > When reading a node at a particular revision, it first checks whether a node > was deleted at that revision or not. That resolution first checks the > revisions of _deleted locally, i.e. in the main document. Two cases currently > exist: > # If it finds a value in the local _deleted map, it accepts that as the valid > one. > # If it doesn't find a value in the local _deleted map, it reads the _deleted > maps from any split documents and searches there for a valid value. > If there was a split of \_deleted however, the first case is not sufficient - > as that currently ignores split documents in that case, while the most recent > revision (for a particular read revision) _can_ be in a split doc, rather > than the main doc. This happens if the newer split revisions (of _deleted) > are from a different clusterId than older non-split revisions. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
