Hi all, I've implemented corresponded .NET api. Pavel, could you review my PR, please?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8075 2018-04-10 21:06 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > Hi Pavel, > > thank you for bring up test questions. It seems my previous comments were > not taken into account. > > Igniters, > > let me remind we should get passing TC suites before merge, > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers > (highlighted > note). > > For disabling parity test checks please consider steps describled in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Ignite+Tests+How+To# > IgniteTestsHowTo-Testof.NETAPIparitywithJavaAPI > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > пн, 9 апр. 2018 г. в 21:18, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > Pavel Tupitsyn, what about .NET stuff ? > > > > 1) Thank you for filing the ticket, personally I have no plans to work on > > it in the near future. > > > > 2) .NET tests fail, please make sure they are fixed before merging: > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1175956 > > > > TransactionsParityTest should be fixed by adding new properties to ignore > > list with a reference to IGNITE-8075, this is simple. > > > > But I have concerns about > > *CachePartitionedTest.TestTransactionScopeMultiCache, * > > seems like something is broken with multi-cache transactions. Please > > investigate this one. > > > > Thanks, > > Pavel > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Alexei Scherbakov < > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > I've slightly modified public API javadoc as Denis Magda has suggested > in > > > PR review. > > > > > > Please take a look. > > > > > > Pavel Tupitsyn, what about .NET stuff ? > > > > > > I provided all necessary information in ticket [2] > > > > > > Upsource link [1] > > > > > > [1] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/branch/PR%203624 > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8075 > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 9 апр. 2018 г. в 16:57, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > I am not aware of any additional timeouts that we are willing to add > in > > > the > > > > nearest future. > > > > > > > > 2018-04-09 16:01 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > After the review in Upsource the configuration parameter was > > renamed > > > > > > to txTimeoutOnPartMapSync, and it makes sense to me because PME > is > > an > > > > > > implementation detail and it may change in future, partition map > > sync > > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > more abstract term. For the same reason I like this parameter > being > > > > > placed > > > > > > on transactions configuration - we do not have any parameters for > > > PME, > > > > so > > > > > > the configuration property goes to an object which affects a > > > > user-exposed > > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AG, are we going to have any other timeouts on PME, like locks? If > > yes, > > > > > then I would still vote of adding PmeTimeout property. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > -- Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
