Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
OK. I don't have a strong feeling about preserving the Java ULR on `master`. I think since deleting such a large chunk of code is a big deal, this is a good thing for an explicit vote. That way, anyone who is following dev@ and wants to preserve the Java ULR on `master` can issue their -1 vote and we can respect it (but ask to get the testing green). I would suggest opening a PR with the change, opening a "lazy consensus" vote on dev@ and then waiting a decent amount of time before merging the deletion PR. Kenn On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:43 PM Daniel Oliveira wrote: > The ULR used a bunch of code forked from the DirectRunner but I don't > think it currently shares anything. And if it does share any code that I > don't know about I expect that the dependency is one-way, i.e. removing the > ULR shouldn't affect the DirectRunner. The only shared code I know of is > between the ULR and other portable runners, particularly Flink, but I don't > think that would be difficult to isolate. > > I'm in support of disabling the ULR tests and ok with removing the ULR as > long as we make sure it can be revived if we want, like with Mikhail's > suggestion of tagging the commit. I can help with the removal of the ULR > code since I know specifics about the codebase. > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> I know the Java DirectRunner shares a lot of code with the ULR. I'm a bit >> unclear on the delta and how independent they are. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin >> wrote: >> >>> @Kenneth >>> If we disable tests, I'd call Java ULR a dead code. >>> >>> One of the better compromises: >>> 1. disable tests. >>> 2. Add tag to the last commit where Java ULR existed. >>> 3. Remove Java ULR from head. >>> >>> Keeping history, no extra dead code at head. >>> >>> --Mikhail >>> >>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: >>> >>>> On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python >>>> reference runners. Jira: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> How about this compromise: >>>>> >>>>> 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the >>>>> functionality that is broken >>>>> 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up >>>>> and make it work if they want >>>>> >>>>> Kenn >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >>>>>> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to this thread >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >>>>>> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >>>>>> remove it from code base. >>>>>> >>>>>> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR >>>>>> tests, or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >>>>>> future. >>>>>> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java >>>>>> reference runner. >>>>>> >>>>>> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean >>>>>> towards going forward with Python reference runner. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, share your thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> --Mikhail >>>>>> >>>>>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>>>>> >>>>>
Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
The ULR used a bunch of code forked from the DirectRunner but I don't think it currently shares anything. And if it does share any code that I don't know about I expect that the dependency is one-way, i.e. removing the ULR shouldn't affect the DirectRunner. The only shared code I know of is between the ULR and other portable runners, particularly Flink, but I don't think that would be difficult to isolate. I'm in support of disabling the ULR tests and ok with removing the ULR as long as we make sure it can be revived if we want, like with Mikhail's suggestion of tagging the commit. I can help with the removal of the ULR code since I know specifics about the codebase. On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > I know the Java DirectRunner shares a lot of code with the ULR. I'm a bit > unclear on the delta and how independent they are. > > Kenn > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin > wrote: > >> @Kenneth >> If we disable tests, I'd call Java ULR a dead code. >> >> One of the better compromises: >> 1. disable tests. >> 2. Add tag to the last commit where Java ULR existed. >> 3. Remove Java ULR from head. >> >> Keeping history, no extra dead code at head. >> >> --Mikhail >> >> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: >> >>> On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python reference >>> runners. Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles >>> wrote: >>> >>>> How about this compromise: >>>> >>>> 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the >>>> functionality that is broken >>>> 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and >>>> make it work if they want >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >>>>> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >>>>> >>>>> According to this thread >>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >>>>> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >>>>> remove it from code base. >>>>> >>>>> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR >>>>> tests, or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >>>>> >>>>> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >>>>> future. >>>>> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java >>>>> reference runner. >>>>> >>>>> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean >>>>> towards going forward with Python reference runner. >>>>> >>>>> Please, share your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> --Mikhail >>>>> >>>>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>>>> >>>>
Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
I know the Java DirectRunner shares a lot of code with the ULR. I'm a bit unclear on the delta and how independent they are. Kenn On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin wrote: > @Kenneth > If we disable tests, I'd call Java ULR a dead code. > > One of the better compromises: > 1. disable tests. > 2. Add tag to the last commit where Java ULR existed. > 3. Remove Java ULR from head. > > Keeping history, no extra dead code at head. > > --Mikhail > > Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: > >> On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python reference >> runners. Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >>> How about this compromise: >>> >>> 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the functionality >>> that is broken >>> 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and >>> make it work if they want >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >>>> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >>>> >>>> According to this thread >>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >>>> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >>>> remove it from code base. >>>> >>>> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR >>>> tests, or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >>>> >>>> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >>>> future. >>>> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference >>>> runner. >>>> >>>> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean >>>> towards going forward with Python reference runner. >>>> >>>> Please, share your thoughts. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> --Mikhail >>>> >>>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>>> >>>
Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
@Kenneth If we disable tests, I'd call Java ULR a dead code. One of the better compromises: 1. disable tests. 2. Add tag to the last commit where Java ULR existed. 3. Remove Java ULR from head. Keeping history, no extra dead code at head. --Mikhail Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: > On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python reference > runners. Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> How about this compromise: >> >> 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the functionality >> that is broken >> 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and >> make it work if they want >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >>> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >>> >>> According to this thread >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >>> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >>> remove it from code base. >>> >>> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR tests, >>> or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >>> >>> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >>> future. >>> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference >>> runner. >>> >>> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean towards >>> going forward with Python reference runner. >>> >>> Please, share your thoughts. >>> >>> Regards, >>> --Mikhail >>> >>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>> >>
Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python reference runners. Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > How about this compromise: > > 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the functionality > that is broken > 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and > make it work if they want > > Kenn > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >> >> According to this thread >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >> remove it from code base. >> >> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR tests, >> or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >> >> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >> future. >> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference >> runner. >> >> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean towards >> going forward with Python reference runner. >> >> Please, share your thoughts. >> >> Regards, >> --Mikhail >> >> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >> >
Re: Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
How about this compromise: 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the functionality that is broken 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and make it work if they want Kenn On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some time > now. These are tests for java reference runner. > > According to this thread > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, > we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to > remove it from code base. > > My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR tests, > or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? > > a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the > future. > b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference > runner. > > Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean towards > going forward with Python reference runner. > > Please, share your thoughts. > > Regards, > --Mikhail > > Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >
Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing
Hi everyone, We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some time now. These are tests for java reference runner. According to this thread <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to remove it from code base. My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR tests, or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the future. b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference runner. Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean towards going forward with Python reference runner. Please, share your thoughts. Regards, --Mikhail Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>?
