ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:52:49 GMT
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
View raw message