ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:08:49 GMT
Ivan,

Do you mean massive no-op handler restore patch [1]?

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4974/files


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:53 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

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