[discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

[Jiuming Tao]

Hi all:
According to the issue (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038), 
 when producer send a message to broker and broker rate-limited at that time, 
the request will blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and send 
receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control 
strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, broker 
not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.

Thanks,
Tao Jiuming

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

[Jiuming Tao]

>   So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control 
> strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, 
> broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.

Broker not `disableAutoread` but reply a `FlowControlException` instead. 



> 2022年4月7日 下午3:13，Jiuming Tao  写道：
> 
> Hi all:
>   According to the issue (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038), 
>  when producer send a message to broker and broker rate-limited at that time, 
> the request will blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and send 
> receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
>   So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control 
> strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, 
> broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tao Jiuming

Re: [DISSCUSS] [PIP-151] Use the system topic to store the bundle load data

[Haiting Jiang]

Hi Kai,

Good feature. Please add more info about how to enable this in an existing 
cluster.  Do we plan to write bundle data to both zk and system topic during 
rolling update? 

Thanks,
Haiting

On 2022/04/07 01:35:09 Kai Wang wrote:
> Hi Pulsar community,
> 
> I created a PIP to use the system topic to store the bundle load data in the 
> load manager.
> 
> The proposal can be found: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15037
> 
> -
> ## Motivation
> 
> Currently, Pulsar LoadManager is using Zookeeper to store the bundle load 
> data, when we have many bundles, this might put a lot of pressure on 
> Zookeeper.
> 
> ## Goal
> 
> This PIP proposes storing the load manager's bundle load data to a system 
> topic and using TableView to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ## Implementation
> 
> Since the bundle load data is stats data, it no needs a strong consistent 
> guarantee. So we can use the system topic to store the load data and use 
> TableView to read it.
> 
> 
> ### System topic client
> 
> 
> 
> Add a new SystemTopicClient calls `LoadBalanceBundleDataSystemTopicClient` , 
> the topic name is `persistent://pulsar/system/__load_balance_bundle_data`, 
> and the key is the bundle name, value is BundleData.
> 
> ```java
> public class LoadBalanceBundleDataSystemTopicClient extends 
> SystemTopicClientBase {
> // ...
> }
> ```
> 
> 
> 
> Add new Event calls `LoadBalanceBundleDataEvent`
> 
> ```
> @Data
> public class LoadBalanceBundleDataEvent {
> 
>  private String bundle;
> 
>  private BundleData bundleData;
> }
> 
> ```
> 
> 
> ### ModularLoadManagerImpl
> 
> 
> Add a TableView in `ModularLoadManagerImpl` to replace the bundle cache
> 
> ```
> private TableView bundlesTableView;
> ```
> 
> 
> ## Compatibility
> 
> This feature can have both backward and forward compatibility since the 
> bundle data is stats data.
> 
> -
> 
> Thanks,
> Kai
> 

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

[Haiting Jiang]

>  send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.

It's always possible that client got timeout, but the message is actually 
successfully written,
causing by network issue.

IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is Producer/Consumer 
isolation issue, 
since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is rate-limited, 
topic-B in the same 
client is also affected.

Thanks,
Haiting

On 2022/04/07 07:13:50 Jiuming Tao wrote:
> Hi all:
>   According to the issue (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038), 
>  when producer send a message to broker and broker rate-limited at that time, 
> the request will blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and send 
> receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
>   So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control 
> strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, 
> broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tao Jiuming

OpenMLDB JDBC Sink Connector

[Huang Wei]

Hello,

I added a 4paradigm/OpenMLDB JDBC Sink Connector and would appreciate feedback.
The PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15064
No new tests.

--
Huang Wei

[VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

[Roc Marshal]

Hi Pulsar community,


 Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ .  It will 
stay open for at least 48 hours.
 The discussion thread is 
https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
  I make the two options based on the discussion:
  [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
  [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
  Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options 
from you.


Thanks, 

Roc Marshal.

Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal  wrote:
> 
> Hi Pulsar community,
> 
> 
> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ .  It will 
> stay open for at least 48 hours.
> The discussion thread is 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .

I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.

>  I make the two options based on the discussion:
>  [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely

In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.

>  [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.

There may be consensus for this option.

>  Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options 
> from you.

We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.

When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases 
and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at this 
time.

If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you should 
start with a PR on the main branch.

Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki

ATB,
Dave

> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Roc Marshal.

Performance Engineering Track CFP for ApacheCon NA New Orleans

[sharanf]

Hi All

I hope that you have already heard that ApacheCon NA is back as a live 
event in New Orleans later this year. You can find out more details 
here: https://apachecon.com/acna2022/


For the first time ever - we will be running a Performance Engineering 
track. So what is Performance Engineering? You can find a definition and 
a track description here: https://s.apache.org/3ykqk


If you are interested in making a submission to this new track then you 
can find a link to the CFP here: https://apachecon.com/acna2022/cfp.html


We are looking forward to receiving your submissions and hopefully 
seeing those of you who can make it to New Orleans in October.


Thanks
Sharan

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

[Jiuming Tao]

Yes, I agree with `it’s always possible that client got timeout`. But mostly, 
it’s an UNKNOWN state, producer didn’t know whether the message was persisted 
or not. 
Fail-fast strategy could let producers know this message was rejected by broker 
clearly.

Thanks,
Tao Jiuming

> 2022年4月7日 下午3:53，Haiting Jiang  写道：
> 
>> send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
> 
> It's always possible that client got timeout, but the message is actually 
> successfully written,
> causing by network issue.
> 
> IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is Producer/Consumer 
> isolation issue, 
> since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is rate-limited, 
> topic-B in the same 
> client is also affected.
> 
> Thanks,
> Haiting
> 
> On 2022/04/07 07:13:50 Jiuming Tao wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>  According to the issue (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038), 
>>  when producer send a message to broker and broker rate-limited at that 
>> time, the request will blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and 
>> send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
>>  So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control 
>> strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, 
>> broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tao Jiuming

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

[Lari Hotari]

> IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is
> Producer/Consumer isolation issue,
> since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is
rate-limited,
> topic-B in the same client is also affected.

Exactly. The rate-limiting won't even work properly since other rate
limiters operating on the same connection will enable autoread and this
results in inconsistent behavior.

-Lari

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:53 AM Haiting Jiang 
wrote:

> >  send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
>
> It's always possible that client got timeout, but the message is actually
> successfully written,
> causing by network issue.
>
> IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is Producer/Consumer
> isolation issue,
> since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is rate-limited,
> topic-B in the same
> client is also affected.
>
> Thanks,
> Haiting
>
> On 2022/04/07 07:13:50 Jiuming Tao wrote:
> > Hi all:
> >   According to the issue (
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038),  when producer send a
> message to broker and broker rate-limited at that time, the request will
> blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and send receipt to
> producer, the producer maybe timeout already.
> >   So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control
> strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit,
> broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tao Jiuming
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece opened a new pull request, #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

nodece opened a new pull request, #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28

   Signed-off-by: Zixuan Liu 
   
   ### Motivation
   
   I tried to rerun the failed test, but the failed test cannot be rerun. I 
checked the 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5869256539?check_suite_focus=true#step:5:314,
 no tests were run.
   
   Using 
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#list-workflow-runs-for-a-repository
 is not working, this API cannot find my actions.
   
   You can use this command to reproduce: 
   
   ```
   PR_USER=nodece PR_BRANCH=update_spring_library status=failure curl -s -H 
"Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" 
"https://api.github.com/repos/apache/pulsar/actions/runs?actor=${PR_USER}&branch=${PR_BRANCH}&status=${status}&per_page=100";
   ```
   
   If we use the old way to get the failed checks, it is working:
   
   ```
   curl -s -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" 
"https://api.github.com/repos/apache/pulsar/commits/70266323cc7784c66c35044d64ef87e593559b7d/check-runs?per_page=1";
   
   {
 "total_count": 57,
 "check_runs": [
   {
 "id": 5867399574,
 "name": "Unit-PROXY Tests",
 "node_id": "CR_kwDOA7PXtM8BXblplg",
 "head_sha": "70266323cc7784c66c35044d64ef87e593559b7d",
 "external_id": "",
 "url": 
"https://api.github.com/repos/apache/pulsar/check-runs/5867399574";,
 "html_url": "https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574";,
 "details_url": "https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574";,
 "status": "completed",
 "conclusion": "success",
 "started_at": "2022-04-07T11:22:16Z",
 "completed_at": "2022-04-07T11:22:16Z",
 "output": {
   "title": "Unit-PROXY Tests ✔️",
   "summary": "![Tests passed 
successfully](https://img.shields.io/badge/tests-92%20passed-success)\n|Report|Passed|Failed|Skipped|Time|\n|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.extensions.ProxyExtensionsTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r0)|5✔️|||3s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.extensions.ProxyExtensionUtilsTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r1)|3✔️|||471ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.extensions.ProxyExtensionWithClassLoaderTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r2)|2✔️|||1s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.extensions.SimpleProxyExtensionSeparateThreadPoolTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r3)|1✔️|||27ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.extensions.SimpleProxyExtensionSharedThreadPoolTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r4)|1✔️|||24ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.AdminProxyHandlerTest.xml](https://github.
 
com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r5)|3✔️|||1s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.AuthedAdminProxyHandlerTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r6)|1✔️|||7s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.BrokerProxyValidatorTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r7)|7✔️|||2s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.FunctionWorkerRoutingTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r8)|1✔️|||5s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.InvalidProxyConfigForAuthorizationTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r9)|1✔️|||102ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyAdditionalServletTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r10)|1✔️|||920ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyAuthenticatedProducerConsumerTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r11)|1✔️|||33s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyAuthenticationTest.xml](https://github.com
 
/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r12)|1✔️|||6s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyConfigurationTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r13)|2✔️|||372ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyConnectionTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r14)|1✔️|||9ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyConnectionThrottlingTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r15)|1✔️|||5s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyEnableHAProxyProtocolTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r16)|1✔️|||3s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyForwardAuthDataTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r17)|1✔️|||69s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyIsAHttpProxyTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r18)|10✔️|||3s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyParserTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r19)|5✔
 
️|||10s|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyPrometheusMetricsTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r20)|1✔️|||976ms|\n|[TEST-org.apache.pulsar.proxy.server.ProxyRolesEnforcementTest.xml](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5867399574#r21)|1✔️|||9s|

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

[GitBox]

nodece commented on PR #27:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1091988110

   @lhotari @michaeljmarshall @codelipenghui This PR breaks  the `/pulsarbot 
rerun-failure-checks` feature, I submitted #28 to fix this, could you review 
this PR? Thanks for your time.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari closed pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

lhotari closed pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on PR #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092079756

   I explained some of the changes in 
https://lists.apache.org/thread/n05xp17krb4f3cc0jjkh65ytqk1w6130 .
   
   
   You can also provide feedback on the mailing list.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on PR #27:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1092081886

   > @lhotari @michaeljmarshall @codelipenghui This PR breaks  the `/pulsarbot 
rerun-failure-checks` feature, I submitted #28 to fix this, could you review 
this PR? Thanks for your time.
   
   I replied in 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092079756 . 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on PR #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092083499

   With the new CI there's another case where you see a red mark. It's when 
flaky tests fail, but later pass in a retry, the failed test result will get 
recorded to a test report. That doesn't block merging, but will show up so that 
the failures can be inspected. It's a bit confusing since GitHub Actions has a 
bug that the test reports get attached randomly to a workflow when there are 
multiple workflows executing. I'll write to the dev list explaining this since 
I have received a few questions about this.
   
   It might appear that re-running doesn't work because of the new test 
reports. Those failures won't clear off, but they don't block merging either.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on PR #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092086661

   In your case, it's the flaky tests report: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15065/checks?check_run_id=5867398812 . 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[OUTREACH] Happenings in the Pulsar Neighborhood April '22

[Aaron Williams]

Hello Pulsar Neighbors,

For this issue
,
ApacheCon ‘22, new Neighborhood article, a new committer, and our first in
person event. Plus our normal features of a Stack Overflow question and
some monthly community stats.

If you have anything that you think your neighbors would find interesting,
we have created #blogs-articles and #event-decks channels on the Apache
Pulsar slack Workspace to capture them.

Thank you,
Aaron Williams
Resident of the Apache Pulsar Neighborhood

Re:Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

[Roc Marshal]

Hi, Dave.Thank you very much for your reply.A little confusions 
from me:- As you said, the option [2] may be only used as a specification 
to restrict the coding specification of PR test cases in the future. If so, 
What does the new PR need to record based on master branch ? - There is no 
consensus for considering option [1] now. Does this mean that making a PIP  
make no much sense?Thanks,Roc
At 2022-04-07 22:16:40, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Pulsar community,
>> 
>> 
>> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ .  It 
>> will stay open for at least 48 hours.
>> The discussion thread is 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
>
>I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.
>
>>  I make the two options based on the discussion:
>>  [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
>
>In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.
>
>>  [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
>
>There may be consensus for this option.
>
>>  Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options 
>> from you.
>
>We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.
>
>When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases 
>and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at 
>this time.
>
>If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you 
>should start with a PR on the main branch.
>
>Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
>
>ATB,
>Dave
>
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> 
>> Roc Marshal.

Re: [Survey] How do you like the new Pulsar website?

[Yu]

Hi everyone,

We’ve received valuable feedback, many thanks!

To collect more responses, we’re extending the survey deadline to Apr 13,
23:00, UTC+8.

If you haven't had a chance to share your thoughts and experience yet, we
strongly encourage you to take 5-min to make your voice heard! We take the
results from the survey seriously, as they help shape important decisions
on the Pulsar website.

Start the English survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/QK6FYdQ158

OR

Start the Chinese survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/2NmBaS5yW6

Thanks!

Cheers,

Yu


On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:40 PM Yu  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Please take the New Pulsar Website Survey if you haven’t already.
>
> It’s a great way to show your appreciation for the project and help the
> community improve in the future.
>
> Start the English survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/QK6FYdQ158
> OR
> Start the Chinese survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/2NmBaS5yW6
>
> Thank you! :-D
>
> Cheers,
> Yu
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:25 AM Yu  wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Have you checked out the new Pulsar website (
>> https://pulsar-next.staged.apache.org/)?
>>
>> It’s been 30 days since the website beta started and we’re eager to know
>> what you think of the changes.
>> Does the home page draw you in? How about the new pages for docs, blogs,
>> articles, events, and case studies? Doesn’t it look good?
>>
>> So we can keep the launch of the new website on track, we’d like to know
>> what your experience has been so far.
>> Please take a few minutes and share your feedback. Your answers will
>> allow us to identify any improvements we can make!
>>
>> - This survey takes 5 minutes or less.
>> - You can take this anonymous survey without login.
>>
>> Start the English survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/QK6FYdQ158
>> OR
>> Start the Chinese survey NOW: https://forms.office.com/r/2NmBaS5yW6
>>
>> Please complete this survey by EOD Apr 3, UTC+8.
>>
>> If you have any questions about this survey or difficulties with the
>> link, do not hesitate to contact me by email.
>>
>> Let’s continue working together to build an awesome Pulsar community.
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Yu
>>
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

nodece commented on PR #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092396641

   @lhotari Thanks for your explanation!  
   
   > There's a misunderstanding. The new CI requires using the new API for 
re-running just failed jobs and not the complete workflow. Please report what 
is broken first and we can think of a solution.
   
   I have a question about the `get_runs failure` don't seem to get the correct 
data, this data includes the `conclusion: success` item. Do you notice this?
   
   > I explained some of the changes in 
https://lists.apache.org/thread/n05xp17krb4f3cc0jjkh65ytqk1w6130 .
   > "The limitation is that you need to wait for all jobs to complete before 
failed jobs can be re-run."
   > 
   > You can also provide feedback on the mailing list.
   
   This is detailed.
   
   > With the new CI there's another case where you see a red mark. It's when 
flaky tests fail, but later pass in a retry, the failed test result will get 
recorded to a test report. That doesn't block merging, but will show up so that 
the failures can be inspected. It's a bit confusing since GitHub Actions has a 
bug that the test reports get attached randomly to a workflow when there are 
multiple workflows executing. I'll write to the dev list explaining this since 
I have received a few questions about this.
   
   > It might appear that re-running doesn't work because of the new test 
reports. Those failures won't clear off, but they don't block merging either.
   
   This is confusing, I'm looking forward your solution.
   
   
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on PR #28:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092402909

   > I have a question about the `get_runs failure` don't seem to get the 
correct data, this data includes the `conclusion: success` item. Do you notice 
this?
   
   Yes. That happens when an actual build run hasn't failed. As explained in 
previous comments, the test reports added to the build are causing this.  
   
   The benefit of seeing the failed test reports is that we can start paying 
more attention to the flaky test problem and fixing them. Flaky tests might be 
indicating real production code issues.
   
   > This is confusing, I'm looking forward your solution.
   
   There's really no other solution than documenting this. We could remove the 
rendered test reports, but I think that integrating test reports to GitHub 
Actions UI is useful.
   GitHub Actions UI has a bug that [test reports get attached to wrong 
workflows](https://github.com/dorny/test-reporter/issues/67) when there's more 
than one workflow that gets triggered by a build job. Perhaps some day GitHub 
fixes this issue and the test reports can be shown in the correct location, 
attached to each build job. That would help resolve the issue since the test 
reports wouldn't be a separate check and instead the test reports could be 
attached to the build job that runs the tests. That's currently not possible 
because of the GitHub Actions bug.
   
   
   
   
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-site] urfreespace opened a new pull request, #48: fix: migrate algolia to new credencials

[GitBox]

urfreespace opened a new pull request, #48:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/48

   Signed-off-by: Li Li 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

[GitBox]

nodece commented on PR #27:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1092412534

   This PR is working, thanks for the @lhotari explanation.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4

[Enrico Olivelli]

+1 (binding)
Tests and distributed system are passing also on this RC


Enrico

Il Gio 24 Mar 2022, 14:36 PengHui Li  ha scritto:

> I also updated the release doc
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process
>
> To make sure the release manager cleans the local compiled bookkeeper
> before processing the release.
>
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:32 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > I will clean up my local bookkeeper build cache and cut a new RC.
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 6:33 PM Masahiro Sakamoto <
> massa...@yahoo-corp.jp>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, I noticed that the binary package contains BookKeeper libraries
> >> compiled on Mac instead of Linux.
> >>
> >> $ unzip -t lib/org.apache.bookkeeper-circe-checksum-4.14.4.jar | grep
> >> lib/lib
> >>
> >> testing: lib/libcirce-checksum.jnilib   OK
> >>
> >> $ unzip -t lib/org.apache.bookkeeper-cpu-affinity-4.14.4.jar | grep
> >> lib/lib
> >>
> >> testing: lib/libcpu-affinity.jnilib   OK
> >>
> >> The same thing happened when voting for v2.9.0, which caused the vote to
> >> be cancelled. Should it be fixed this time as well?
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/gsbh95b2d9xtcg5fmtxpm9k9q6w68gd2
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Masahiro Sakamoto
> >> Yahoo Japan Corp.
> >> E-mail: massa...@yahoo-corp.jp
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: r...@apache.org 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 5:14 PM
> >> To: Dev 
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4
> >>
> >> +1(non-binding)
> >>
> >> Validate Go SDK
> >> Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Xiaolong Ran
> >>
> >> Matteo Merli  于2022年3月23日周三 15:06写道：
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > Checked:
> >> >  * Signatures
> >> >  * Bin distribution:
> >> >  - NOTICE, README, LICENSE
> >> >  - Start standalone service and producer/consumer test
> >> >  * Src distribution:
> >> >  - NOTICE,  README, LICENSE
> >> >  - Compile and unit tests
> >> >  - Start standalone service
> >> >  * Checked staging maven repository artifacts
> >> >  * Checked docker images
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Matteo Merli
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:17 PM Haiting Jiang <
> jianghait...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > +1
> >> > >
> >> > > - Compiled the source
> >> > > - Checked checksums and signatures
> >> > > - Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions
> >> > > - Validate Connectors
> >> > > - Validate Stateful Functions
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > Haiting
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2022/03/22 01:52:36 PengHui Li wrote:
> >> > > > This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar 2.10.0
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It fixes the following issues:
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0+is%3Amerged+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.2
> >> > > >
> >> > > > *** Please download, test and vote on this release. This vote will
> >> > stay open
> >> > > > for at least 72 hours ***
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
> provided
> >> > for
> >> > > > convenience.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Source and binary files:
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Fpulsar%2Fpulsar-2.10.0-candidate-4%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmassakam%40yahoo-corp.jp%7Cc45307db50f1431ebf4108da0ca51318%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637836201936167509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=PcY63TeS2fukr%2Fn7zrvso6IY%2FNSFS1ldjDNM%2Fi0tzqs%3D&reserved=0
> >> > > >
> >> > > > SHA-512 checksums:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> f4ff0c5e06b7c09a6508f106be4287b47f4dfa6c2e1ec88d6a38ee767731428fde183ed2ce778aff89aece8fb1b06d5f1ada982817545be9a11c6e146913f7ab
> >> > > > apache-pulsar-2.10.0-bin.tar.gz
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> 1f6c98c6dede135a73858d29be055a76a178b31b861dd8ef4ef33cb7951f95fc13a5c5ad5bee35abb0ad6420b4d7a763175c46cb1f90786fe865fd075e4d85c6
> >> > > > apache-pulsar-2.10.0-src.tar.gz
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Maven staging repo:
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapachepulsar-1154%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmassakam%40yahoo-corp.jp%7Cc45307db50f1431ebf4108da0ca51318%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637836201936167509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=A%2B9834yzCKElQICStfvxUdBjsKstw3dWFxzuNW3OBP4%3D&reserved=0
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The tag to be voted upon:
> >> > > > v2.10.0-candidate-3 (6d3fbbea4e9aaaf183ff4117d368b19d9ab6ad7e)
> >> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.10.0-candidate-4
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >> > > >
> >>
> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4

[Enrico Olivelli]

My understanding is that we have to cut a new RC anyway
Is this correct?

Enrico

Il Ven 8 Apr 2022, 07:57 Enrico Olivelli  ha scritto:

> +1 (binding)
> Tests and distributed system are passing also on this RC
>
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Gio 24 Mar 2022, 14:36 PengHui Li  ha scritto:
>
>> I also updated the release doc
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process
>>
>> To make sure the release manager cleans the local compiled bookkeeper
>> before processing the release.
>>
>> Penghui
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:32 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > I will clean up my local bookkeeper build cache and cut a new RC.
>> >
>> > Penghui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 6:33 PM Masahiro Sakamoto <
>> massa...@yahoo-corp.jp>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi, I noticed that the binary package contains BookKeeper libraries
>> >> compiled on Mac instead of Linux.
>> >>
>> >> $ unzip -t lib/org.apache.bookkeeper-circe-checksum-4.14.4.jar | grep
>> >> lib/lib
>> >>
>> >> testing: lib/libcirce-checksum.jnilib   OK
>> >>
>> >> $ unzip -t lib/org.apache.bookkeeper-cpu-affinity-4.14.4.jar | grep
>> >> lib/lib
>> >>
>> >> testing: lib/libcpu-affinity.jnilib   OK
>> >>
>> >> The same thing happened when voting for v2.9.0, which caused the vote
>> to
>> >> be cancelled. Should it be fixed this time as well?
>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/gsbh95b2d9xtcg5fmtxpm9k9q6w68gd2
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Masahiro Sakamoto
>> >> Yahoo Japan Corp.
>> >> E-mail: massa...@yahoo-corp.jp
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: r...@apache.org 
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 5:14 PM
>> >> To: Dev 
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4
>> >>
>> >> +1(non-binding)
>> >>
>> >> Validate Go SDK
>> >> Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Xiaolong Ran
>> >>
>> >> Matteo Merli  于2022年3月23日周三 15:06写道：
>> >>
>> >> > +1
>> >> >
>> >> > Checked:
>> >> >  * Signatures
>> >> >  * Bin distribution:
>> >> >  - NOTICE, README, LICENSE
>> >> >  - Start standalone service and producer/consumer test
>> >> >  * Src distribution:
>> >> >  - NOTICE,  README, LICENSE
>> >> >  - Compile and unit tests
>> >> >  - Start standalone service
>> >> >  * Checked staging maven repository artifacts
>> >> >  * Checked docker images
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Matteo Merli
>> >> > 
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:17 PM Haiting Jiang <
>> jianghait...@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > +1
>> >> > >
>> >> > > - Compiled the source
>> >> > > - Checked checksums and signatures
>> >> > > - Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions
>> >> > > - Validate Connectors
>> >> > > - Validate Stateful Functions
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks
>> >> > > Haiting
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 2022/03/22 01:52:36 PengHui Li wrote:
>> >> > > > This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar 2.10.0
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It fixes the following issues:
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0+is%3Amerged+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.2
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > *** Please download, test and vote on this release. This vote
>> will
>> >> > stay open
>> >> > > > for at least 72 hours ***
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
>> provided
>> >> > for
>> >> > > > convenience.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Source and binary files:
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Fpulsar%2Fpulsar-2.10.0-candidate-4%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmassakam%40yahoo-corp.jp%7Cc45307db50f1431ebf4108da0ca51318%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637836201936167509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=PcY63TeS2fukr%2Fn7zrvso6IY%2FNSFS1ldjDNM%2Fi0tzqs%3D&reserved=0
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > SHA-512 checksums:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> f4ff0c5e06b7c09a6508f106be4287b47f4dfa6c2e1ec88d6a38ee767731428fde183ed2ce778aff89aece8fb1b06d5f1ada982817545be9a11c6e146913f7ab
>> >> > > > apache-pulsar-2.10.0-bin.tar.gz
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> 1f6c98c6dede135a73858d29be055a76a178b31b861dd8ef4ef33cb7951f95fc13a5c5ad5bee35abb0ad6420b4d7a763175c46cb1f90786fe865fd075e4d85c6
>> >> > > > apache-pulsar-2.10.0-src.tar.gz
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Maven staging repo:
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapachepulsar-1154%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmassakam%40yahoo-corp.jp%7Cc45307db50f1431ebf4108da0ca51318%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637836201936167509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=A%2B9834yzCKElQICStfvxUdBjsKstw3dWFxzuNW3OBP4%3D&reserved=0
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The tag to be voted upon:
>> >> > > > v2.10