[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-28 Thread Chen Liang (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16269707#comment-16269707 ] Chen Liang commented on RATIS-141: -- +1 on v20171125b patch, I've committed the patch, thanks [~szetszwo]

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-23 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16264955#comment-16264955 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- [~vagarychen], looked at the code again and found

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-22 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16263441#comment-16263441 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- > And just making callIdCounter non-static would do

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-22 Thread Chen Liang (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16263369#comment-16263369 ] Chen Liang commented on RATIS-141: -- Thanks [~szetszwo] for working on this! Had an offline discussion with

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-19 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16258728#comment-16258728 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- > It seems easier to reproduce the failure of

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-19 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16258715#comment-16258715 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- This is a different failed case {code} Running

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-19 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16258695#comment-16258695 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- TestRaftStream.testSimpleWrite may fail WITHOUT any

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-17 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16257899#comment-16257899 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- r141_20171117.patch: add streamSeqNum to

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-13 Thread Jing Zhao (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16250460#comment-16250460 ] Jing Zhao commented on RATIS-141: - Yeah, sounds good to me. In the meanwhile, let me check why we made this

[jira] [Commented] (RATIS-141) In RaftClientProtocolService, the assumption of consecutive callId is invalid

2017-11-13 Thread Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16250022#comment-16250022 ] Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on RATIS-141: --- It actually is better to call it streamSeqNum. How