+1!
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:22 PM Ahmet Altay wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:21 PM Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>
>>> Please review the release of the following artifacts that we vendor:
>>> *
The Apache Airflow project has some interesting automation around flaky
tests. They annotate such flaky tests as 'quarantined', those quarantined
tests still run (maybe even with retries?) but won't fail a test suite.
Quarantined tests are run in a separate scheduled job, when they start
passing,
Thanks again Robert!
We will start with the implementation of AfterPane and the WindowingStrategy
(core/graph/window/strategy.go)
- Fernando Morales
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:02 PM Robert Burke wrote:
> Hello Fernando!
>
> That should be correct.
>
> The protos are used to represent the user
Hi team,
it is mentioned in this WI that the tests (GroupByKeyTest
testLargeKeys100MB and testGroupByKeyWithBadEqualsHashCode) stopped working
around five months ago.
I took a look at the PRs prior to that date and couldn't find a report
stating that they were working.
Is there a way to get
+1
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:21 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
>> Please review the release of the following artifacts that we vendor:
>> * beam-vendor-grpc-1_36_0
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Please review and vote on the release
+1
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Please review the release of the following artifacts that we vendor:
> * beam-vendor-grpc-1_36_0
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.1, as
> follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
I expect the suite to be permared, right? Because of some thing or another
flaking at all times.
Kenn
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:13 PM Alex Amato wrote:
> Is it possible to make the presubmit auto retry all failed tests a few
> times? (and maybe generate a report of a list of flakey tests).
>
Please review the release of the following artifacts that we vendor:
* beam-vendor-grpc-1_36_0
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.1, as
follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The
Is it possible to make the presubmit auto retry all failed tests a few
times? (and maybe generate a report of a list of flakey tests).
Then you don't need to disable/isolate the flakey tests.
If this is not possible, or hard to setup, then manually moving them to a
different suite sounds like a
Hi all,
In Beam, we sometimes hit the issue of having one or two test cases that
are particularly flaky, and we deactivate them.
This is completely reasonable to me, because we need to keep good testing
signal on our primary suites.
The danger of deactivating these tests is that, although we have
Hello Fernando!
That should be correct.
The protos are used to represent the user pipeline in a portable way, and
handle the serialization of such. However the only time the SDKs actually
need deal with the protos is the "last mile", but this is a per SDK choice.
The Go SDK is mostly set up to
*Hi team,*
We’re working on WI https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3304 and
have a couple of questions.
As we understand it, the Proto compiler based on file beam_runner_api.proto
creates the whole RunnerApi for Java (RunnerApi.class) and for Go
(beam_runner_api.pb.go)
Update:
There are 5 issues tagged to 2.29.0 release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=statusCategory%20!%3D%20done%20AND%20project%20%3D%2012319527%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%2012349629%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20ASC
There are 4 issues in Needs Triage state with priority
Update on this: there are some minor issues and then I'll send out the RC.
I think this is worth blocking 2.29.0 release on, so I will do this first.
We are still eliminating other blockers from 2.29.0 anyhow.
Kenn
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 7:17 AM Tomo Suzuki wrote:
> Hi Beam developers,
>
>
Hello Team,
Could you please add my user name CesarCueva19 to the contributor list?
Thank you
--
*This email and its contents (including any attachments) are being sent to
you on the condition of confidentiality and may be protected by legal
privilege. Access to this email by anyone other than
I've asked on checkerframework users mailing list if they or any users have
recommendations for the IntelliJ integration issue.
It is worth noting that the default annotations inserted into the bytecode
do add value: the @NonNull type annotations are default for
checkerframework but not default
Hello Vitaly, What is your jira id?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:54 PM Vitaly Terentyev
wrote:
>
> This is Vitaly from Akvelon.
> Could you please add me as a contributor to Beam's Jira issue tracker?
> I would like to assign some tickets for my work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vitaly
Seems it is an FAQ with no solution:
https://checkerframework.org/manual/#faq-classfile-annotations
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:01 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Adding -PskipCheckerframework when releasing will solve it for users, but
> not for dev@.
>
> Making it off by default and a separate CI
Adding -PskipCheckerframework when releasing will solve it for users, but
not for dev@.
Making it off by default and a separate CI check that turns it on would
solve it overall but has the downsides mentioned before.
It would be very nice to simply have a flag to not insert default
annotations.
This is Vitaly from Akvelon.
Could you please add me as a contributor to Beam's Jira issue tracker?
I would like to assign some tickets for my work.
Best regards,
Vitaly
I agree with all of your points. I have good news and bad news. Reordering
your points to put some together
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:14 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
> a) if a check does not modify the bytecode, it is fine and we can use it
> - we are absolutely free to use any tooling we agree on,
I believe it is not a problem of Idea. At least I didn't notice behavior
like that with Guava, although Guava uses the framework as well. Maybe
there is a way to tune which annotations should be generated? Or Guava
handles that somehow differently?
On 3/16/21 5:22 PM, Reuven Lax wrote:
I've
I've also been annoyed at IntelliJ autogenenerating all these annotations.
I believe Kenn said that this was not the intention - maybe there's an
IntelliJ setting that would stop this from happening?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:14 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
> I don't know the details of the
I don't know the details of the checkerframework, but there seems a
contradiction between what code is (currently) generated and what we
therefore release and what actually the checkerframework states [1]:
@UnknownKeyFor:
Used internally by the type system; should never be written by a
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:42 PM Reuven Lax wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:12 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
>> I will be blunt about my opinions about the general issue:
>>
>> - NullPointerExceptions (and similar) are a solved problem.
>>* They have been since 2003 at the latest [1]
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:12 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> I will be blunt about my opinions about the general issue:
>
> - NullPointerExceptions (and similar) are a solved problem.
>* They have been since 2003 at the latest [1] (this is when the types
> were hacked into Java - the foundation
26 matches
Mail list logo
