Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 12/02/2016 15:00, Davide Giannella wrote: > Team, > > the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade) > ... Thank you everyone for the effort and collaboration. All the issues are resolved and I will start producing the cut around 10.30am GMT. Please refrain any commit around that time up to when you see the voting email. Cheers Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Hi Tomek, Thx a lot. I'll patch the relevant branches now. Best regards, Manfred On 2/15/2016 11:41 AM, Tomek Rekawek wrote: Hello, The already mentioned JCR-2633 puts jcr:mixinTypes property into NodePropBundle#getPropertyEntries(). As a result, the oak-upgrade code responsible for replacing mix:simpleVersionable with mix:versionable doesn’t work correctly (the results are replaced by the original properties). I explained this in OAK-4018 and attached a patch. Best regards, Tomek On 15/02/16 11:17, "Julian Sedding" wrote: The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2 constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for the tests. Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help. Regards Julian On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella wrote: On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote: Hi, This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. Thank you very much Manfred. I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track and block 1.3.16. From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options: 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring the oak relase around 4-5 days late. I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the new stable JR release. Thoughts? Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 15/02/2016 10:47, Julian Reschke wrote: > ...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use > 2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood > and fixed. Done! :) Cheers Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 2016-02-15 11:47, Julian Reschke wrote: ...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use 2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood and fixed. Best regards, Julian Related to that...: OAK 1.2 currently uses Jackrabbit 2.10.0, although 2.10.1 has been released a long time ago. Shouldn't Oak always use the latest stable release from the matching Jackrabbit branch? Best regards, Julian
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 2016-02-15 10:31, Davide Giannella wrote: On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote: Hi, This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. Thank you very much Manfred. I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track and block 1.3.16. From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options: 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring the oak relase around 4-5 days late. I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the new stable JR release. Thoughts? Davide ...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use 2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood and fixed. Best regards, Julian
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Hello, The already mentioned JCR-2633 puts jcr:mixinTypes property into NodePropBundle#getPropertyEntries(). As a result, the oak-upgrade code responsible for replacing mix:simpleVersionable with mix:versionable doesn’t work correctly (the results are replaced by the original properties). I explained this in OAK-4018 and attached a patch. Best regards, Tomek On 15/02/16 11:17, "Julian Sedding" wrote: >The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to >simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2 >constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's >the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for >the tests. > >Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help. > >Regards >Julian > > >On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella wrote: > >> On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which >> > changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be >> > tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. >> Thank you very much Manfred. >> >> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track >> and block 1.3.16. >> >> From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options: >> >> 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3 >> 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring >> the oak relase around 4-5 days late. >> >> I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the >> new stable JR release. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Davide >> >> >>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2 constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for the tests. Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help. Regards Julian On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella wrote: > On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which > > changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be > > tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. > Thank you very much Manfred. > > I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track > and block 1.3.16. > > From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options: > > 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3 > 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring > the oak relase around 4-5 days late. > > I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the > new stable JR release. > > Thoughts? > > Davide > > >
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote: > Hi, > > This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which > changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be > tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. Thank you very much Manfred. I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track and block 1.3.16. >From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options: 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring the oak relase around 4-5 days late. I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the new stable JR release. Thoughts? Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Hi, This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE. Best regards, Manfred On 2/12/2016 5:50 PM, Davide Giannella wrote: On 12/02/2016 16:39, Julian Reschke wrote: It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0. Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release... ok. We'll need a stable JR into Oak for 1.4. Honestly I'd rather delay the 1.3.16 a couple of days for a proper fix so that we'll have longer coverage in oak with the JR 2.12 branch. The bug came indeed out after my inclusion of JR 2.12 which highlights how coupled JR and Oak are; and that with the current approach we need a reliable continuous build of JR SNAPSHOT and Oak SNAPSHOT to early catch regressions. Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 12/02/2016 16:39, Julian Reschke wrote: > It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0. > > Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might > unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what > Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by > Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release... ok. We'll need a stable JR into Oak for 1.4. Honestly I'd rather delay the 1.3.16 a couple of days for a proper fix so that we'll have longer coverage in oak with the JR 2.12 branch. The bug came indeed out after my inclusion of JR 2.12 which highlights how coupled JR and Oak are; and that with the current approach we need a reliable continuous build of JR SNAPSHOT and Oak SNAPSHOT to early catch regressions. Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
On 2016-02-12 16:00, Davide Giannella wrote: Team, the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade) Failed tests: referencedOlderThanOrphaned(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old copyAllVersions(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old should have mix:versionable mixin onlyReferencedAfterDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young onlyReferenced(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old referencedSinceDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young should have mix:versionable mixin Can anyone give a look as it will be a blocker for next Monday release? Cheers Davide It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0. Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release... Best regards, Julian
oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Team, the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade) Failed tests: referencedOlderThanOrphaned(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old copyAllVersions(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old should have mix:versionable mixin onlyReferencedAfterDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young onlyReferenced(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old referencedSinceDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young should have mix:versionable mixin Can anyone give a look as it will be a blocker for next Monday release? Cheers Davide