ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:54:05 GMT
Hello, Igniters.

I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.

I think we should avoid commits like [1]
Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.

Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?

Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that
patches brings to the code base.
Example of cleanup [2]

It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review this
cleanup patch.

We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".

> I really like your perfectionism

It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.

> And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.

+1 to rollback and rework this commit.
At least, we should reduce copy paste code.

[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
[2]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:

> Andrey,
>
> >> But why should we make all things perfect
> >> in a single fix?
> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> > fallbacks were added?
> > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful
> > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or
> explain
> > > why it's a better choice).
> > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of
> > these
> > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> > > >
> > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > > > overridden method now.
> > > >
> > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is
> it
> > > Ok
> > > > for you?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > tests?
> > > > Why
> > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why
> > > tests
> > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate
any
> > > better
> > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure
handler.
> > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests
> fail
> > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> > > everything
> > > > > properly.
> > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > tests?
> > > > Why
> > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name
> > "massive
> > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only
where
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly
ok to have
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions
> > because
> > > > you
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things
better
> > > than
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope
- no.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> improvements.
> > > And
> > > > I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify
your
> > intent.
> > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free
to
> > convince
> > > > me
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned
patch
> > made
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
meaningful
> > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important.
But
> was
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result?
And why?
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov
<
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide
PR or to
> fix
> > > > these
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to
explain what
> > > problems
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation
I will
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
problems.
> At
> > > > least,
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
we're
> fixing
> > > for
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something,
but to prevent
> > > merge
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
<
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your
idea. Code speaks
> > > > louder
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution
if someone has an
> > idea,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
contribution, but
> > the
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
later and you will
> > set
> > > > new
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option
- ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
allow tests to be
> > > > successful
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
ready to provide
> > arguments
> > > > why
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
what was the problem,
> in
> > > case
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer,
to provide the
> > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test
we solved by no-op
> > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
in case arguments
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
because changes make
> tests
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
default long time ago.
> > > Please
> > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
the previous commit. New
> > > commit
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate
your idea how to
> > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
will not work because the
> > fail
> > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside
a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code
block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
*bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct
fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure
you have to check this
> > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you
to rollback these changes and
> > > > replace
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
failure handler as a default one
> > > looks
> > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
reason to fallback to noop for
> > 100+
> > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
test become failed after
> > > changing
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create
a ticket (may be umbrella)
> to
> > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
files in PR and some of them
> > are
> > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
failover test doesn't expects if
> > any
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there
is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should
set custom failure handler to
> > > > detect
> > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
simulation is needed (to keep
> > > hanged
> > > > > grid
> > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means
"hide any problem", so, we lose
> the
> > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
please share some examples where
> > > "no-op"
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec
5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii
> Ryabov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
I think wrapping every disconnecting
> > > node
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less
readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср,
5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Folks let me remind you that Dmitry
> changed
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
to a meaningful handler. So we should
> start
> > > > every
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Please review remaining tests and remove
> > noop
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> If you expect failure handler should be
> > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> one and rise some flag, which can be
> > > checked
> > > > in
> > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь
> "Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> And you have to check the reason of
> > failure
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> In case found not equals to expected
> then
> > > > test
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > In case you expect the failure then a
> > > > correct
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > try-catch block instead of no-op
> > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> Tests in these classes check fail
> > cases
> > > > when
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> failure like node stop or exception
> > > > thrown.
> > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> handler and it fails test when
> > > everything
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > BTW, if you find in any of your
> > tests
> > > it
> > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to
> remove
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > Could you please explain the
> > reason
> > > of
> > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12,
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > Today the test framework's
> > default
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > handler, which stops the node
> > and
> > > > > fails
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op
> > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

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