> > > I think we can get rid of this by extending CassandraDaemon, just need to > add a few hooks to mock out gossip/internode/client (for cases where the > mocks are desired), and when mocks are not desired just run the real logic. > > Too many times I have had to make the 2 more in-line, and this is hard to > maintain… we should fix this and feel this is 100% fixable >
Thanks for the explanation David. Outside of this area is there some other difference in the coverage of the tests. Is serialization fully covered? I would like to be sure that we will not miss anything by using in-jvm dtests instead of python dtests. Le mer. 30 mars 2022 à 02:15, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> a écrit : > > a well-defined path to reduce/eliminate code duplication and basic > documentation for newcomers to get up to speed with writing in-jvm dtests > and extending the framework > > > > Are python tests much better here? If not, I do not see why these should > be blockers for their deprecation. > > > > Perfect feature parity also seems unnecessary - unless a missing feature > is an active impediment. But as far as I know every missing feature is > actively under development and can be expected very soon. > > > > Let’s get this decision over and done with. > > > > > > *From: *Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 00:46 > *To: *Cassandra DEV <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] Should we deprecate / freeze python dtests > > I support deprecating python dtests, as long as in-jvm dtests have feature > parity with python dtests, a well-defined path to reduce/eliminate code > duplication and basic documentation for newcomers to get up to speed with > writing in-jvm dtests and extending the framework. > > > > Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 às 20:09, bened...@apache.org < > bened...@apache.org> escreveu: > > It often does not work. I can attest to many wasted weeks, on some > environments never getting them to work. > > > > They happen to work right now for me, though. > > > > I think the learning curve thing is a bit of a distraction, personally. I > have always found python dtests hard to work with, both developing against > and running, so their learning curve for me is going on 10 years. Some folk > may be more comfortable with python dtests due to their familiarity with > python, ccm or other tooling, but that is a different matter. > > > > Looking at git, most contributors to python dtests are contributors to > in-jvm dtests, and the latter have received 20x as many net code > contributions over the past year. > > > > I think it’s quite justified to just say in-jvm dtests are simply better > to work with, and already better and more widely used despite their youth, > whatever their remaining teething problems. > > > > I vote we immediately discontinue python dtest development, and > discontinue running python dtests pre-commit, retaining them for releases > only. This will provide the necessary impetus to polish off any last > remaining gaps, without reducing coverage. > > > > *From: *Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 23:42 > *To: *dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] Should we deprecate / freeze python dtests > > > In fact there is a high learning curve to setup cassandra-dtest > environment > > I think this is fairly well documented: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra-dtest/blob/trunk/README.md > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I am curious about this comment. When I first joined I learned > jvm-dtest within an hour and started walking Repair code in a debugger (and > this was way before the improvements that let us do things like nodetool)… > python dtest took weeks to get working correctly (still having issues with > the MBean library we use… so have to comment out error handling to get some > tests to pass)…. > > > > Thanks for sharing your perspective. In fact there is a high learning > curve to setup cassandra-dtest environment, but once it's working it's > pretty straightforward to test any existing or new functionality. > > > > I think with in-jvm dtests you don't have the hassle of setting up a > different environment and this is a great motivator to standardize on this > solution. The main difficulty I had was testing features not supported by > the framework, which require you to extend the framework. I don't recall > having to extend ccm/cassandra-dtest many times when working on new > features. > > > > Perhaps this has improved recently and we no longer need to worry about > extending the framework or duplicating code when testing new functionality. > > > > Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 às 15:12, Ekaterina Dimitrova < > e.dimitr...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> > >> One thing that we can add to docs is for people how to update the > in-jvm framework and test their patches before asking for in-jvm api > release. The assumption is those won’t be many updates needed I think, but > it is good to be documented. > >> > >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:51, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> They use a separate implementation of instance initialization and thus > they test the test server rather than the real node. > >>> > >>> > >>> I think we can get rid of this by extending CassandraDaemon, just need > to add a few hooks to mock out gossip/internode/client (for cases where the > mocks are desired), and when mocks are not desired just run the real logic. > >>> > >>> Too many times I have had to make the 2 more in-line, and this is hard > to maintain… we should fix this and feel this is 100% fixable > >>> > >>> we shouldn't neglect that there is a significant learning curve > associated with it for new contributors which IMO is much lower for pyhton > dtests > >>> > >>> > >>> I am curious about this comment. When I first joined I learned > jvm-dtest within an hour and started walking Repair code in a debugger (and > this was way before the improvements that let us do things like nodetool)… > python dtest took weeks to get working correctly (still having issues with > the MBean library we use… so have to comment out error handling to get some > tests to pass)…. > >>> > >>> Maybe we could have some example docs showing how to do the same in > both tools? Honestly Cluster.build(3).withConfig(c -> > c.with(Feature.values())).start() matches 95% of python dtest tests (the > withConfig logic is a bit cryptic), so don’t think the docs would be too > much work > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 5:48 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> we should at least write extensive documentation on how to use/modify > in-jvm dtest framework before deprecating python dtests. > >>> > >>> We should have this for all our testing frameworks period, in-jvm > dtest, python dtest, and ccm. They're woefully under-documented IMO. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022, at 6:11 AM, Paulo Motta wrote: > >>> > >>> To elaborate a bit on the steep learning curve point, when mentoring > new contributors on a couple of occasions I told them to "just write a > python dtest" because we had no idea on how to test that functionality on > in-jvm tests while the python dtest was fairly straightforward to implement > (I can't recall exactly what feature was it but I can dig if necessary). > >>> > >>> While we might be already familiar with the in-jvm dtest framework due > to our exposure to it, we shouldn't neglect that there is a significant > learning curve associated with it for new contributors which IMO is much > lower for pyhton dtests. So we should at least write extensive > documentation on how to use/modify in-jvm dtest framework before > deprecating python dtests. > >>> > >>> Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 às 06:58, Paulo Motta < > pauloricard...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >>> > >>> > They use a separate implementation of instance initialization and > thus they test the test server rather than the real node. > >>> > >>> I also have this concern. When adding a new service on CASSANDRA-16789 > we had to explicitly modify the in-jvm dtest server to match the behavior > from the actual server [1] (this is just a minor example but I remember > having to do something similar on other tickets). > >>> > >>> Besides having a steep learning curve since users need to be familiar > with the in-jvm dtest framework in order to add new functionality not > supported by it, this is potentially unsafe, since the implementations can > diverge without being caught by tests. > >>> > >>> Is there any way we could avoid duplicating functionality on the test > server and use the same initialization code on in-jvm dtests? > >>> > >>> [1] - > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/ad249424814836bd00f47931258ad58bfefb24fd#diff-321b52220c5bd0aaadf275a845143eb208c889c2696ba0d48a5fc880551131d8R735 > >>> > >>> Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 às 04:22, Benjamin Lerer < > ble...@apache.org> escreveu: > >>> > >>> They use a separate implementation of instance initialization and thus > they test the test server rather than the real node. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is actually my main concern. What is the real gap between the > in-JVM tests server instance and a server as run by python DTests? > >>> > >>> Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 00:08, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > a écrit : > >>> > >>> > Other than that, it can be problematic to test upgrades when the > starting version must run with a different Java version than the end release > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> python upgrade tests seem to be particularly limited (from a quick > skim, primarily testing major upgrade points that are now long in the > past), so I’m not sure how much of a penalty this is today in practice - > but it might well become a problem. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There’s several questions to answer, namely how many versions we want > to: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - test upgrades across > >>> > >>> - maintain backwards compatibility of the in-jvm dtest api across > >>> > >>> - support a given JVM for > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> However, if we need to, we can probably use RMI to transparently > support multiple JVMs for tests that require it. Since we already use > serialization to cross the ClassLoader boundary it might not even be very > difficult. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Jacek Lewandowski <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> > >>> Date: Monday, 28 March 2022 at 22:30 > >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we deprecate / freeze python dtests > >>> > >>> Although I like in-jvm DTests for many scenarios, I can see that they > do not test the production code as it is. They use a separate > implementation of instance initialization and thus they test the test > server rather than the real node. Other than that, it can be problematic to > test upgrades when the starting version must run with a different Java > version than the end release. One more thing I've been observing sometimes > is high consumption of metaspace, which does not seem to be cleaned after > individual test cases. Given each started instance uses a dedicated class > loader there is some amount of trash left and when there are a couple of > multi-node test cases in a single test class, it sometimes happens that the > test fail with out of memory in metaspace error. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Jacek > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:06 PM David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I am back and the work for trunk to support vnode is at the last stage > of review; I had not planned to backport the changes to other branches > (aka, older branches would only support single token), so if someone would > like to pick up this work it is rather LHF after 17332 goes in (see trunk > patch GH PR: trunk). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I am in favor of deprecating python dtests, and agree we should figure > out what the gaps are (once vnode support is merged) so we can either > shrink them or special case to unfreeze (such as startup changes being > allowed). > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mar 14, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> vnode support for in-jvm dtests is in flight and fairly > straightforward: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17332 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> David's OOO right now but I suspect we can get this in in April some > time. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, at 8:36 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote: > >>> > >>> This is the limitation I mentioned. I think this is solely a question > of supplying an initial config that uses vnodes, i.e. that specifies > multiple tokens for each node. It is not really a limitation – I believe a > dtest could be written today using vnodes, by overriding the config’s > tokens. It does look like the token handling has been refactored since the > initial implementation to make this a little uglier than should be > necessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We should make this trivial, anyway, and perhaps offer a way to run > all of the dtests with vnodes (and suitably annotating those that cannot be > run with vnodes). This should be quite easy. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Andrés de la Peña <adelap...@apache.org> > >>> Date: Monday, 14 March 2022 at 12:28 > >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we deprecate / freeze python dtests > >>> > >>> Last time I checked there wasn't support for vnodes on in-jvm dtests, > which seems an important limitation. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 12:24, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I am strongly in favour of deprecating python dtests in all cases > where they are currently superseded by in-jvm dtests. They are > environmentally more challenging to work with, causing many problems on > local and remote machines. They are harder to debug, slower, flakier, and > mostly less sophisticated. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > all focus on getting the in-jvm framework robust enough to cover > edge-cases > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Would be great to collect gaps. I think it’s just vnodes, which is by > no means a fundamental limitation? There may also be some stuff to do > startup/shutdown and environmental scripts, that may be a niche we retain > something like python dtests for. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > people aren’t familiar > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I would be interested to hear from these folk to understand their > concerns or problems using in-jvm dtests, if there is a cohort holding off > for this reason > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This is going to require documentation work from some of the > original authors > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I think a collection of template-like tests we can point people to > would be a cheap initial effort. Cutting and pasting an existing test with > the required functionality, then editing to suit, should get most people > off to a quick start who aren’t familiar. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Labor and process around revving new releases of the in-jvm dtest API > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I think we need to revisit how we do this, as it is currently broken. > We should consider either using ASF snapshots until we cut new releases of > C* itself, or else using git subprojects. This will also become a problem > for Accord’s integration over time, and perhaps other subprojects in > future, so it is worth better solving this. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I think this has been made worse than necessary by moving too many > implementation details to the shared API project – some should be retained > within the C* tree, with the API primarily serving as the shared API itself > to ensure cross-version compatibility. However, this is far from a complete > explanation of (or solution to) the problem. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>> Date: Monday, 14 March 2022 at 12:11 > >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Should we deprecate / freeze python dtests > >>> > >>> I've been wrestling with the python dtests recently and that led to > some discussions with other contributors about whether we as a project > should be writing new tests in the python dtest framework or the in-jvm > framework. This discussion has come up tangentially on some other topics, > including the lack of documentation / expertise on the in-jvm framework > dis-incentivizing some folks from authoring new tests there vs. the > difficulty debugging and maintaining timer-based, sleep-based > non-deterministic python dtests, etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't know of a place where we've formally discussed this and made a > project-wide call on where we expect new distributed tests to be written; > if I've missed an email about this someone please link on the thread here > (and stop reading! ;)) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At this time we don't specify a preference for where you write new > multi-node distributed tests on our "development/testing" portion of the > site and documentation: > https://cassandra.apache.org/_/development/testing.html > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The primary tradeoffs as I understand them for moving from > python-based multi-node testing to jdk-based are: > >>> > >>> Pros: > >>> > >>> Better debugging functionality (breakpoints, IDE integration, etc) > >>> Integration with simulator > >>> More deterministic runtime (anecdotally; python dtests _should_ be > deterministic but in practice they prove to be very prone to environmental > disruption) > >>> Test time visibility to internals of cassandra > >>> > >>> Cons: > >>> > >>> The framework is not as mature as the python dtest framework (some > functionality missing) > >>> Labor and process around revving new releases of the in-jvm dtest API > >>> People aren't familiar with it yet and there's a learning curve > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> So my bid here: I personally think we as a project should freeze > writing new tests in the python dtest framework and all focus on getting > the in-jvm framework robust enough to cover edge-cases that might still be > causing new tests to be written in the python framework. This is going to > require documentation work from some of the original authors of the in-jvm > framework as well as folks currently familiar with it and effort from those > of us not yet intimately familiar with the API to get to know it, however I > believe the long-term benefits to the project will be well worth it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We could institute a pre-commit check that warns on a commit > increasing our raw count of python dtests to help provide process-based > visibility to this change in direction for the project's testing. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> So: what do we think? > >>> > >>> > >
