[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15738419#comment-15738419
]
Saikat Kanjilal commented on SPARK-9487:
----------------------------------------
I'm ok closing it actually but it does outline issues with robustness around
the unit tests, should we open up another jira or reframe this effort to make
the unit tests more robust, that may require some more thought/redesign to
produce identical results locally as well as in jenkins, my vote would be to
close this out and recreate another jira that I can take on to make the unit
tests more robust for 1 specific component with very narrowly defined goals,
what do you think?
> Use the same num. worker threads in Scala/Python unit tests
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-9487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9487
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: PySpark, Spark Core, SQL, Tests
> Affects Versions: 1.5.0
> Reporter: Xiangrui Meng
> Labels: starter
> Attachments: ContextCleanerSuiteResults, HeartbeatReceiverSuiteResults
>
>
> In Python we use `local[4]` for unit tests, while in Scala/Java we use
> `local[2]` and `local` for some unit tests in SQL, MLLib, and other
> components. If the operation depends on partition IDs, e.g., random number
> generator, this will lead to different result in Python and Scala/Java. It
> would be nice to use the same number in all unit tests.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
