Hello Dmitry, Yes, I've updated test classes as you metioned before. Now i'm fixing review comments. Within next few days I'll prepare final version of this PR.
вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 20:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > Hi Maxim, > > are there any news on these test fails? > > Is issue ready for review? > > Sincerely, > Dmitiry Pavlov > > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > Hi, thank you! > > > > I've found several suspicious fails: such test fails have rate less than > > 1%, it is probably new failures. > > > > It would be great if we can fix it before merge. Could you address this > > fails? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > IgniteCacheTestSuite5: IgniteCacheStoreCollectionTest.testStoreMap (fail > > rate 0,0%) > > IgniteCacheTestSuite5: > > CacheLateAffinityAssignmentTest.testDelayAssignmentClientJoin (fail rate > > 0,0%) > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEviction (fail > rate > > 0,0%) > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testAtomicOffheapEvictionIndexing > > (fail rate 0,0%) > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEviction (fail rate > > 0,0%) > > IgniteCacheWithIndexingTestSuite: > > CacheRandomOperationsMultithreadedTest.testTxOffheapEvictionIndexing > (fail > > rate 0,0%) > > > > IgniteBinarySimpleNameMapperCacheFullApiTestSuite: > > > GridCachePartitionedNearDisabledMultiNodeWithGroupFullApiSelfTest.testWithSkipStoreTx > > (fail rate 0,0%) > > > > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 17:04, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Yep, link may not be correct. > >> > >> Here is correct version: > >> TC: * > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead > >> < > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead > >> >* > >> > >> > >> вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:41, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > Hi Maxim, > >> > > >> > could you please provide link to TC run on your PR? It seems link > >> provided > >> > points to run of master. In changes field you may select > pull/3542/head > >> > before starting RunAll. > >> > > >> > Igniters, > >> > > >> > this change is related to our test framework, so change may affect > your > >> > tests. Please join to review > >> > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > >> > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:14, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I think, I've done with this issue, what should we do next? > >> > > > >> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > >> > > Upsource: > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > >> > > TC: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=723895&personal=false&buildTypeId=&tab=vcsModificationTests > >> > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 14:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com > >: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Maxim, > >> > > > > >> > > > Thank you. > >> > > > > >> > > > To my mind stopAllGrids call should be kept in afterTestsStop(). > If > >> > > > developer forgot to call super(), he will see exception from > >> > > > beforeTestsStart() > >> > > > added by you. > >> > > > > >> > > > If you think patch is ready to be reviewed, please change JIRA > >> status > >> > to > >> > > > "Patch Available". > >> > > > > >> > > > Optionally you can create Upsource review. It would be easier for > >> > > multiple > >> > > > reviewers to handle this patch. This test framework is used by all > >> > > Igniters > >> > > > so Upsource would be good option ( > >> https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ > >> > ). > >> > > > > >> > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > > >> > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com > >: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I've made some changes based on our previous discusstions, > please > >> see > >> > > PR > >> > > > > [1]: > >> > > > > 1) Remove duplicated code for stopGrid (by index and by name); > >> > > > > 2) Add new method that thows exception if not all grids haven't > >> > stopped > >> > > > > correctly; > >> > > > > 3) Change tests that have been affected by this changes; > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Also, I have some thoughts for clarification: > >> > > > > 1) beforeTestsStart() - I expect here in subtests that grids are > >> not > >> > > > > started yet. Am I right? > >> > > > > 2) I think we should call stopAllGrids in tearDown method. So, > if > >> in > >> > > some > >> > > > > cases we'll override afterTestsStop in subclasses and forgot to > >> call > >> > > > > super() it won't lead us to exception. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > >> > > > > [2] > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=717275 > >> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 18:28, Maxim Muzafarov < > maxmu...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you all, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'll add this comment's for JIRA ticket, if you don't mind. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:16, Dmitry Pavlov < > >> dpavlov....@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, this solution allows to cover both cases: > >> > > > > >> a) not stopped node from previous test and > >> > > > > >> b) allows to remove useless code that stops Ignite nodes from > >> each > >> > > > test. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:13, Anton Vinogradov < > >> > > > avinogra...@gridgain.com > >> > > > > >: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Maxim, > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > We discussed with Dima privately, and decided > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > 1) We have to assert that there is no alive nodes at > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's > >> > > > > >> > beforeTestsStarted > >> > > > > >> > 2) We have to kill all alive nodes (without force) at > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest's > >> > > > > >> > afterTestsStopped > >> > > > > >> > 3) In case of any exceptions at #2 we have to see test > error > >> > > > > >> > 4) We can get rid of all useless stopAllGrids at > >> > > GridAbstractTest's > >> > > > > >> > subclasses. > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > >> > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest > 's > >> > > > > >> > > afterTestsStopped > >> > > > > >> > > method body. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Can't agree with it becase implicit silent shutdown of > >> nodes > >> > > from > >> > > > > test > >> > > > > >> > > framework may cause a lot of bugs introduced to Ignite. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > I think stop+test fail should occur. > >> > > > > >> > > In that case author of incorrect test or not consistent > >> Ignite > >> > > > > >> shutdown > >> > > > > >> > > will see problem. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 'Fail fast' if always better than hidding real problem > >> under > >> > > > > automatic > >> > > > > >> > > framework feature. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 14:05, Anton Vinogradov < > >> > > > > >> avinogra...@gridgain.com > >> > > > > >> > >: > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I've made some research about this problem and i > think > >> > that > >> > > in > >> > > > > >> > general > >> > > > > >> > > we > >> > > > > >> > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in GridAbstractTest > >> class > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am I > right? > >> > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest > 's > >> > > > > >> > > > afterTestsStopped method > >> > > > > >> > > > body. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean cancel) > >> this > >> > > > > "cancel" > >> > > > > >> > > > That's just a flag means "do not wait for any > operations > >> > > finish" > >> > > > > >> > > > See no reason to set it true in that case. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped this > will > >> > > affect > >> > > > > only > >> > > > > >> > > > > last test (method). > >> > > > > >> > > > The idea is to stop all nodes at last test's method > >> finish. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Nodes that survive between tests can affect > successive > >> > > > > >> > > > tests. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thats ok. we have a lot tests where nodes reusable > >> between > >> > > > test's > >> > > > > >> > > methods. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > >> > > > > >> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Igniters, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > IMO nodes that survive between tests is not general > >> > practice > >> > > > and > >> > > > > >> I'm > >> > > > > >> > > not > >> > > > > >> > > > > sure is a best practice. I suggest to mark such tests > >> with > >> > > > some > >> > > > > >> > method > >> > > > > >> > > > > overriden from AbstractTest. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > About cancel flag, please note stopAllGrids(boolean > >> > cancel) > >> > > > > >> > > cancel=false > >> > > > > >> > > > > allows to wait of checkpoint ends in case persistence > >> > > enabled. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I still suggest to avoid stopping any nodes by test, > >> but > >> > > > > validate > >> > > > > >> not > >> > > > > >> > > > > stopped node exist and fail test instead of siltent > >> > implicit > >> > > > > >> actions. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 13:04, Andrey Kuznetsov < > >> > > > > stku...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> >: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Maxim, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your first question, the use of > >> > > afterTestsStopped > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> not > >> > > > > >> > > > enough > >> > > > > >> > > > > > to stop all nodes, since each individual test > >> (method) > >> > can > >> > > > > start > >> > > > > >> > > custom > >> > > > > >> > > > > set > >> > > > > >> > > > > > of notes during its operation, and this very test > >> should > >> > > > stop > >> > > > > >> all > >> > > > > >> > > those > >> > > > > >> > > > > > nodes. If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped > >> this > >> > > > will > >> > > > > >> > affect > >> > > > > >> > > > only > >> > > > > >> > > > > > last test (method). Nodes that survive between > tests > >> can > >> > > > > affect > >> > > > > >> > > > > successive > >> > > > > >> > > > > > tests. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-07 1:10 GMT+03:00 Maxim Muzafarov < > >> > > > maxmu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > I've made some research about this problem and i > >> think > >> > > > that > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > general > >> > > > > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in > GridAbstractTest > >> > > class > >> > > > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am I > >> > right? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Also, I have a question about > stopAllGrids(boolean > >> > > cancel) > >> > > > > >> this > >> > > > > >> > > > > "cancel" > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > argument. Why in some cases we should interrupt > >> > > ComputeJob > >> > > > > >> and in > >> > > > > >> > > > some > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > cases shouldn't? For example here: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> IgniteBaselineAffinityTopologyActivationTest#afterTest > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > we call method stopAllGrids(false) this way. Why > >> not > >> > > > "true" > >> > > > > >> > > argument > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > instead? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
