ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Stop nodes after test by default - IGNITE-6842
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2018 17:17:06 GMT
Hello Dmitry,

Yes, I've updated test classes as you metioned before.
Now i'm fixing review comments. Within next few days I'll prepare final
version of this PR.

вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 20:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> are there any news on these test fails?
>
> Is issue ready for review?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitiry Pavlov
>
> вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi, thank you!
> >
> > I've found several suspicious fails: such test fails have rate less than
> > 1%, it is probably new failures.
> >
> > It would be great if we can fix it before merge. Could you address this
> > fails?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > IgniteCacheTestSuite5: IgniteCacheStoreCollectionTest.testStoreMap (fail
> > rate 0,0%)
> > IgniteCacheTestSuite5:
> > CacheLateAffinityAssignmentTest.testDelayAssignmentClientJoin (fail rate
> > 0,0%)
> > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
> > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEviction (fail
> rate
> > 0,0%)
> > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
> > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEvictionIndexing
> > (fail rate 0,0%)
> > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
> > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEviction (fail rate
> > 0,0%)
> > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite:
> > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEvictionIndexing
> (fail
> > rate 0,0%)
> >
> > IgniteBinarySimpleNameMapperCacheFullApiTestSuite:
> >
> GridCachePartitionedNearDisabledMultiNodeWithGroupFullApiSelfTest.testWithSkipStoreTx
> > (fail rate 0,0%)
> >
> > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:04, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Yep, link may not be correct.
> >>
> >> Here is correct version:
> >> TC: *
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead
> >> <
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead
> >> >*
> >>
> >>
> >> вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:41, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Hi Maxim,
> >> >
> >> > could you please provide link to TC run on your PR? It seems link
> >> provided
> >> > points to run of master. In changes field you may select
> pull/3542/head
> >> > before starting RunAll.
> >> >
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > this change is related to our test framework, so change may affect
> your
> >> > tests. Please join to review
> >> > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >
> >> > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:14, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > I think, I've done with this issue, what should we do next?
> >> > >
> >> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542
> >> > > Upsource:
> https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502
> >> > > TC:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=723895&personal=false&buildTypeId=&tab=vcsModificationTests
> >> > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 14:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> >:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi Maxim,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thank you.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To my mind stopAllGrids call should be kept in afterTestsStop().
> If
> >> > > > developer forgot to call super(), he will see exception from
> >> > > > beforeTestsStart()
> >> > > > added by you.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you think patch is ready to be reviewed, please change JIRA
> >> status
> >> > to
> >> > > > "Patch Available".
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Optionally you can create Upsource review. It would be easier
for
> >> > > multiple
> >> > > > reviewers to handle this patch. This test framework is used by
all
> >> > > Igniters
> >> > > > so Upsource would be good option (
> >> https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> >> > ).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > >
> >> > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com
> >:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I've made some changes based on our previous discusstions,
> please
> >> see
> >> > > PR
> >> > > > > [1]:
> >> > > > > 1) Remove duplicated code for stopGrid (by index and by
name);
> >> > > > > 2) Add new method that thows exception if not all grids
haven't
> >> > stopped
> >> > > > > correctly;
> >> > > > > 3)  Change tests that have been affected by this changes;
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Also, I have some thoughts for clarification:
> >> > > > > 1) beforeTestsStart() - I expect here in subtests that grids
are
> >> not
> >> > > > > started yet. Am I right?
> >> > > > > 2) I think we should call stopAllGrids in tearDown method.
So,
> if
> >> in
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > cases we'll override afterTestsStop in subclasses and forgot
to
> >> call
> >> > > > > super() it won't lead us to exception.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=717275
> >> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 18:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> maxmuzaf@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you all,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'll add this comment's for JIRA ticket, if you don't
mind.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:16, Dmitry Pavlov
<
> >> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> Yes, this solution allows to cover both cases:
> >> > > > > >> a) not stopped node from previous test and
> >> > > > > >> b) allows to remove useless code that stops Ignite
nodes from
> >> each
> >> > > > test.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:13, Anton Vinogradov
<
> >> > > > avinogradov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > Maxim,
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > We discussed with Dima privately, and decided
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > 1) We have to assert that there is no alive
nodes at
> >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's
> >> > > > > >> > beforeTestsStarted
> >> > > > > >> > 2) We have to kill all alive nodes (without
force) at
> >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's
> >> > > > > >> > afterTestsStopped
> >> > > > > >> > 3) In case of any exceptions at #2 we have
to see test
> error
> >> > > > > >> > 4) We can get rid of all useless stopAllGrids
at
> >> > > GridAbstractTest's
> >> > > > > >> > subclasses.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
<
> >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase)
to GridAbstractTest
> 's
> >> > > > > >> > > afterTestsStopped
> >> > > > > >> > > method body.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > Can't agree with it becase implicit silent
shutdown of
> >> nodes
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > test
> >> > > > > >> > > framework may cause a lot of bugs introduced
to Ignite.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > I think stop+test fail should occur.
> >> > > > > >> > > In that case author of incorrect test
or not consistent
> >> Ignite
> >> > > > > >> shutdown
> >> > > > > >> > > will see problem.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > 'Fail fast' if always better than hidding
real problem
> >> under
> >> > > > > automatic
> >> > > > > >> > > framework feature.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 14:05,
Anton Vinogradov <
> >> > > > > >> avinogradov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > >> > >:
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > I've made some research about
this problem and i
> think
> >> > that
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > >> > general
> >> > > > > >> > > we
> >> > > > > >> > > > > should move stopAllGrids method
in GridAbstractTest
> >> class
> >> > to
> >> > > > > >> > > > > afterTestsStopped method with
some changes. Am I
> right?
> >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase)
to GridAbstractTest
> 's
> >> > > > > >> > > > afterTestsStopped method
> >> > > > > >> > > > body.
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean
cancel)
> >> this
> >> > > > > "cancel"
> >> > > > > >> > > > That's just a flag means "do not
wait for any
> operations
> >> > > finish"
> >> > > > > >> > > > See no reason to set it true in
that case.
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > If you delegate closing to
afterTestsStopped this
> will
> >> > > affect
> >> > > > > only
> >> > > > > >> > > > > last test (method).
> >> > > > > >> > > > The idea is to stop all nodes at
last test's method
> >> finish.
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > >  Nodes that survive between
tests can affect
> successive
> >> > > > > >> > > > tests.
> >> > > > > >> > > > Thats ok. we have a lot tests where
nodes reusable
> >> between
> >> > > > test's
> >> > > > > >> > > methods.
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM,
Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> > > > > >> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > IMO nodes that survive between
tests is not general
> >> > practice
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > >> I'm
> >> > > > > >> > > not
> >> > > > > >> > > > > sure is a best practice. I
suggest to mark such tests
> >> with
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > >> > method
> >> > > > > >> > > > > overriden from AbstractTest.
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > About cancel flag, please note
stopAllGrids(boolean
> >> > cancel)
> >> > > > > >> > > cancel=false
> >> > > > > >> > > > > allows to wait of checkpoint
ends in case persistence
> >> > > enabled.
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > I still suggest to avoid stopping
any nodes by test,
> >> but
> >> > > > > validate
> >> > > > > >> not
> >> > > > > >> > > > > stopped node exist and fail
test instead of siltent
> >> > implicit
> >> > > > > >> actions.
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г.
в 13:04, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> >> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >> >:
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your first question,
the use of
> >> > > afterTestsStopped
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > >> not
> >> > > > > >> > > > enough
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > to stop all nodes, since
each individual test
> >> (method)
> >> > can
> >> > > > > start
> >> > > > > >> > > custom
> >> > > > > >> > > > > set
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > of notes during its operation,
and this very test
> >> should
> >> > > > stop
> >> > > > > >> all
> >> > > > > >> > > those
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > nodes. If you delegate
closing to afterTestsStopped
> >> this
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > >> > affect
> >> > > > > >> > > > only
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > last test (method). Nodes
that survive between
> tests
> >> can
> >> > > > > affect
> >> > > > > >> > > > > successive
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > tests.
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-07 1:10 GMT+03:00
Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > I've made some research
about this problem and i
> >> think
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > >> > > > general
> >> > > > > >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > should move stopAllGrids
method in
> GridAbstractTest
> >> > > class
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > afterTestsStopped
method with some changes. Am I
> >> > right?
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Also, I have a question
about
> stopAllGrids(boolean
> >> > > cancel)
> >> > > > > >> this
> >> > > > > >> > > > > "cancel"
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > argument. Why in
some cases we should interrupt
> >> > > ComputeJob
> >> > > > > >> and in
> >> > > > > >> > > > some
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > cases shouldn't?
For example here:
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> IgniteBaselineAffinityTopologyActivationTest#afterTest
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > we call method stopAllGrids(false)
this way. Why
> >> not
> >> > > > "true"
> >> > > > > >> > > argument
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > instead?
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message