Re: Docker on Windows

Rebase complete and draft PR is open. I see the same null pointer issue Dale reported. Its a problem with the crufty Gradle Docker plugin we are using. It is the very reason we were thinking about making this move towards JUnit 5. Here is what I think for next steps. 1) Disable test

Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8195 to support/1.13 and support/1.12

+1 On 6/26/20, 7:51 AM, "Bruce Schuchardt" wrote: This small fix avoids a failure of one cluster to communicate with the locators of another cluster, ensuring that a proper handshake for WAN communications occurs. Without the fix it’s possible that WAN connections will not be formed

Re: Docker on Windows

On Jun 29, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Robert Houghton mailto:rhough...@vmware.com>> wrote: @Jacob Barrett @Dale Emery I am excited to see progress on this. What I do not know, is what Junit5 buys us in terms of test isolation and parallelism

Re: Docker on Windows

@Jacob Barrett @Dale Emery I am excited to see progress on this. What I do not know, is what Junit5 buys us in terms of test isolation and parallelism compared to what we have now. From: Jacob Barrett Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 at 11:16

Re: Docker on Windows

Awesome! I will take a quick stab at rebasing the changes and see if anything has improved. I will figure out a good place to setup a shared branch for collaboration. -Jake On Jun 29, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Dale Emery mailto:dem...@vmware.com>> wrote: Here are my notes from my most recent

Re: Docker on Windows

Here are my notes from my most recent attempts: • November • Added JUnit 5 to geode-junit API • Configured geode-junit and geode-core to run all tests via JUnit 5 • CI failures on JDK 11 • NPE thrown apparently by Gradle • December • Ran tests in JDK 11 on my Mac • Failures do not occur on my Mac

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

For completeness, GEODE-7519 was a typo, should have been GEODE-7518. On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:44 AM Dave Barnes wrote: > That was quick - thanks, all. I'll proceed with the back-port of these 5 > fixes. > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:36 AM Donal Evans wrote: > >> +1 >>

Re: Docker on Windows

Dale, Sorry I thought it was Kirk. Do you have a branch somewhere with your work so far? Can you refresh us all on the issues you hit and what you think the next steps would be? Thanks, Jake > On Jun 29, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > It was Dale who worked on migrating Geode to

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

That was quick - thanks, all. I'll proceed with the back-port of these 5 fixes. On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:36 AM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > From: Owen Nichols > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:35 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Proposal]

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

+1 From: Owen Nichols Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:35 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13 +1 On 6/29/20, 10:32 AM, "Jinmei Liao" wrote: +1, yay to doc changes.

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

+1 On 6/29/20, 10:32 AM, "Jinmei Liao" wrote: +1, yay to doc changes. From: Dave Barnes Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:30 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13 These five doc changes

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

+1, yay to doc changes. From: Dave Barnes Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:30 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13 These five doc changes correct doc bugs and format errors that have caused users pain. I propose that

[Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

These five doc changes correct doc bugs and format errors that have caused users pain. I propose that we back-port them to support/1.13: GEODE-8193: Broken link in statistics list GEODE-7956, GEODE-7519: Docs should mention dot as a valid region name character GEODE-8304: Better highlight steps

Re: Docker on Windows

It was Dale who worked on migrating Geode to use JUnit 5. I know he ran into some issues but I don't recall what they were. I'm definitely up for helping on the JUnit 5 front! On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:30 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > If the effort to do both is less than the sum of each

DUnit tests with reconnecting locators (jmx managers)

Any DUnit tests with reconnecting locators (jmx managers) are probably going to need to add AlertingIOException as an IgnoredException or it's going to intermittently fail in CI. Just add the following to the setUp of the test: addIgnoredException(AlertingIOException.class);

Announcing ApacheCon @Home 2020

Hi, Apache enthusiast! (You’re receiving this because you’re subscribed to one or more dev or user mailing lists for an Apache Software Foundation project.) The ApacheCon Planners and the Apache Software Foundation are pleased to announce that ApacheCon @Home will be held online, September