Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

Just for reference: it looks that it happens only with default package classes [1]. [1] https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301#issuecomment-1218475514 > On 18 Aug 2022, at 12:40, Alexey Romanenko wrote: > > >> On 17 Aug 2022, at 22:52, Kenneth Knowles > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

> On 17 Aug 2022, at 22:52, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Seems like there has been a lot of progress on > https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301 > . Since it has been > identified, I think we can be pretty confident that the version

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

Seems like there has been a lot of progress on https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301. Since it has been identified, I think we can be pretty confident that the version downgrade is the necessary part. So we can revert the PR for the release, then on main branch we can proceed with

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

PR to revert the change for the release https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/22759 I'll rebuild a new RC once the tests pass and the PR is merged. On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 8:16 AM Liam Miller-Cushon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:42 PM Kiley Sok wrote: > >> Liam, are we okay to roll back

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:42 PM Kiley Sok wrote: > Liam, are we okay to roll back this change for this release? > No concerns from me with rolling back to unblock the release. It looks like this is a change between bytebuddy 1.12.3 and 1.12.4. I filed

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

I think it is more complicated. I validated the Java SDK with Flink Runner and it passed through definitely more complex tests than a simple Pipeline with DoFn [1].  Jan [1] https://github.com/datadrivencz/proxima-platform/pull/624 On 8/17/22 15:19, Alexey Romanenko wrote: On 16 Aug

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

> On 16 Aug 2022, at 23:23, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > And as a follow up we should make sure there is some test that would exercise > this, since that PR was green and was a while ago too and our postcommits did > not catch it either. I’m concerned that it was not caught with Beam tests -

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

I don't think so. The vendored version that Beam depends on has been published and shouldn't need to be built again. Not sure if our build has changed so that it builds the vendored stuff as part of the main build as well, vs pulling it from maven central. Kenn On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:42 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

If we roll back, do we need to roll back +Lukasz Cwik 's change [1] on master as well? Liam, are we okay to roll back this change for this release? [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/22594 On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:25 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Two options to unblock the release are: >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

Two options to unblock the release are: 1. Roll back https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17317/files 2. Downgrade unvendored bytebuddy to 1.11.0 (if the above doesn't work or is too high risk) And as a follow up we should make sure there is some test that would exercise this, since that PR was

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

cc: @Liam Miller-Cushon , who worked on the bytebuddy update. Liam, do you have any context on this error? On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Alexey Romanenko wrote: > I tested with "beam-samples" [1] and found that a rather simple test > pipeline fails [2] with this runtime error: > > Error: >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

I tested with "beam-samples" [1] and found that a rather simple test pipeline fails [2] with this runtime error: Error: Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.776 s <<< FAILURE! - in SerializationTest 5809 Error: SerializationTest.nonSerilizableTest Time

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 (non-binding), Validated Go SDK Quickstart on Direct and Dataflow runner On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 4:26 AM Jan Lukavský wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Validated Java SDK with classical Flink Runner. > On 8/15/22 23:06, Chamikara Jayalath via dev wrote: > > +1 as well > (I believe Kiley is

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 (non-binding) Validated Java SDK with classical Flink Runner. On 8/15/22 23:06, Chamikara Jayalath via dev wrote: +1 as well (I believe Kiley is addressing the container tags issue) Thanks, Cham On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 1:00 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: +1 (binding). I verified

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 as well (I believe Kiley is addressing the container tags issue) Thanks, Cham On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 1:00 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 (binding). > > I verified the release artifacts and signatures, and ran a couple of > simple Python pipelines. > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:40 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 (binding). I verified the release artifacts and signatures, and ran a couple of simple Python pipelines. On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:40 PM Chamikara Jayalath via dev wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:37 AM Kiley Sok wrote: >> >> Thanks everyone! >> >> @Chamikara Jayalath The Spark

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:37 AM Kiley Sok wrote: > Thanks everyone! > > @Chamikara Jayalath The Spark issue is running > successfully for me, could you try it again? I'll look into the container > tags. > Thanks. Regarding the Spark issue, it could just be my setup then. Feel free to close

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

Thanks everyone! @Chamikara Jayalath The Spark issue is running successfully for me, could you try it again? I'll look into the container tags. On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:04 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > +1 - I validated tests/build with existing Dataflow Templates > Best > -P. > > On Fri, Aug

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 - I validated tests/build with existing Dataflow Templates Best -P. On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 9:20 PM Ahmet Altay via dev wrote: > +1 - I validated python quickstarts on direct runner. > > Thank you Kiley! > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:56 PM Kiley Sok via dev > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

I ran some validations and noticed the following. * Dataflow Java/Python containers now have the suffix "rc1' while for the previous releases I tested they used to have the same container ID as the final release. I suspect this is just a process change for Dataflow. * Spark quickstart keeps

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.41.0, release candidate #1

+1 - I validated python quickstarts on direct runner. Thank you Kiley! On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:56 PM Kiley Sok via dev wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.41.0, > as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not approve the