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 12:20:01 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message