Re: Cutting BookKeeper 4.13.1 or 4.14.0 release?

I can confirm that the PR checks pass after excluding TLSv1.3 from enabled protocols: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2696/commits/6003a374d5aec30d7059a21e473ac91417b5cdc3 There should be tests for both TLSv1.2 and TLSv1.3 because of the differences in TLS handshake described in https://

thread safety issue in the BK client, introduced in 4.9.0

Hi all, There seems to be a severe thread safety issue in the BK client: "Recycled LedgerEntryImpl instances are corrupted due to a thread safety issue in BK client" https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3104 . I assume that we could simply revert PR "Read Submission should bypass OSE Threa

Re: thread safety issue in the BK client, introduced in 4.9.0

The reported issue https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3104 turned out to be a clear state handling issue in PendingReadOp class (including embedded classes), fix is https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3110 . -Lari On 2022/03/14 08:20:38 Lari Hotari wrote: > Hi all, > &

Re: Blocker problem for 4.15 release ? Gradle build problems - Revert to Maven ?

-1 for reverting back to Maven. Let's fix the issues in the Gradle instead of bringing Maven back. It will be a burden to maintain 2 builds systems in a single project. That's why it should be either Gradle or Maven, not both. I prefer Gradle and I can volunteer in resolving the issues that there

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-51: BookKeeper client memory limits

On 2022/09/29 04:28:31 Michael Marshall wrote: > I support adding back pressure based on client memory limits to the > bookkeeper client. > > My biggest concern is how the back pressure is propagated to the > client application. If I am reading the draft implementation > correctly, it is via a blo

[DISCUSS] gRPC & Protobuf upgrades

Dear all, I'm reaching out to discuss an ongoing issue in Pulsar related to CVE-2023-32732, which necessitates upgrading gRPC in Pulsar. Although this CVE isn't critical, it's flagged by CVE scanners, and addressing it requires careful coordination of upgrades for gRPC and Protobuf libraries in

Re: [DISCUSS] gRPC & Protobuf upgrades

Bookkeeper, as we have done previously. However, it would be great if we could find a solution to break this dependency cycle. -Lari On 2023/12/14 18:42:04 Lari Hotari wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm reaching out to discuss an ongoing issue in Pulsar related to > CVE-2023-32732, w

Re: [DISCUSS] gRPC & Protobuf upgrades

ak the > dependency cycle. > > +1 to shade the dependency > > Best regards, > Yong > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 02:58, Lari Hotari wrote: > > > I would like to make a minor correction to my previous email: > > > > The pull request https://github.com/a

Re: [DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.16.4 release

+1 It would be great to have 4.16.4 released to get the fix for the Java9IntHash checksum bug https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4140 . I guess this bug applies to all platforms that aren't Linux x86-64 since that's when Java9IntHash is usually active. I've come across the bug quite a fe

Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

Hi, I'm currently working on a PR to enable writing tests with Junit 5 and having Junit 5 tests in addition to Junit 4 tests. This is in PR https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4197 Suddenly there are test failures! I first thought that the upgrade had broken something, but it turns out t

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

since this is a pure guess. :) -Lari On 2024/02/01 19:23:39 Lari Hotari wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently working on a PR to enable writing tests with Junit 5 and having > Junit 5 tests in addition to Junit 4 tests. This is in PR > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4197 >

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

/p9twnlh75kp7t74d8ghmtqbw1f5v4kgk > > > But after switching back to Maven, nobody took care of them and no attempts > have been made to make them runnable again > > I'd suggest to just disable them at this point > > Nicolò Boschi > > > Il giorno gio 1 fe

Re: Docker image missing for 4.15.5

Dockerfile in master was using an outdate base image. I'm not sure if a similar problem exists in other branches. There was "FROM ubuntu:22.10". Ubuntu 22.10 (kinetic) is EOL since July 20 2023. [1] I'm making updates in the Junit 5 support PR while trying to get tests up & running. https://git

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

I'll continue later. I noticed that the circe-checksum native library has been broken too. Fixing it required adding this to nar-maven-plugin's configuration's cpp part: **/*.cpp I wonder if others have noticed these problems? -Lari On 2024/02/01

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

ings in my local development environment on Mac M3. The plan is to replace Arquillian Cube with Testcontainers & Junit 5 after this PR has been completed with reviews and merged. Any other volunteers that would be interested in participating in this work? -Lari On 2024/02/02 14:21:30 Lari Hot

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

I hope other contributors could participate in getting Bookkeeper project health to a better state. Here's a good challenge, replace "PowerMock with Mockito": https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/4201 Anyone? -Lari On 2024/02/06 23:10:35 Lari Hotari wrote: > After

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

97. 😮‍💨 -Lari On 2024/02/06 23:10:35 Lari Hotari wrote: > After some night hacking (58 commits), I'm finally making progress in fixing > Bookkeeper CI. It's a long story to explain all details, so it's better to > just check the PR: > https://github.com/apache/

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

and Junit 5 for the integration tests. Until that is in place, a workaround is needed for Mac OS on Apple Silicon. -Lari On 2024/02/08 07:56:47 Lari Hotari wrote: > After 91 commits, I'm very close in getting integration tests running and > fixed in CI. > > Integration tests

Re: Many tests don't get run on apache/bookkeeper GitHub CI (before upgrading to Junit 5)

maintenance branches to make the CI run all tests, including integration tests. Please review! -Lari On 2024/02/08 10:59:17 Lari Hotari wrote: > Finally all passing and merged! Thanks for the reviews. > > The docs for running the integration tests with Mac M1/M2/M3 is at > https:

Re: Error while starting the release procedure

On 2024/03/16 07:13:08 Enrico Olivelli wrote: > There is a problem in the release process due to some update to the pom > file, we are executing the source plugin twice. > I haven't dug yet > > I will keep you updated Hi Enrico, Did you already solve the problem? The build was updated when I fix

Re: Error while starting the release procedure

's easier to fix, now that there's a way to reproduce and test the fix. -Lari On 2024/03/20 23:38:58 Lari Hotari wrote: > On 2024/03/16 07:13:08 Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > There is a problem in the release process due to some update to the pom > > file, we are executing the s

Re: Error while starting the release procedure

Here's the fix to this issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4237 -Lari On 2024/03/20 23:52:35 Lari Hotari wrote: > I was able to reproduce the problem now. > With PR 4235 and PR 4236 changes under 000-run-docker.sh environment, > I simulated the deployment to a local

Re: [DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.16.5 release

Thank you Nicolò for volunteering. Looking forward to the release. It's a long waited release for Pulsar. -Lari On 2024/03/21 08:53:10 Nicolò Boschi wrote: > Hi all, > > BookKeeper 4.16.4 was released two months ago, and I would > like to discuss the starting 4.16.5 release to include some crit

Re: Docker build is broken for 4.16.4

Does this work for 4.16.5 ? I fixed outdated Dockerfile issues in PR https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4197 / (branch-4.16: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4206). Diff: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4206/files#diff-f34da55ca08f1a30591d8b0b3e885bcc678537b2a9a4aadea4f1

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.16.5, release candidate #0

-1 (non-binding) The signing key F4439BD9D8BB60A5F0693E7D307F9414B754EFE5 isn't in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS . Ran commands: svn co https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.16.5-rc0/ cd bookkeeper-4.16.5-rc0 gpg --import <(curl https://dist.

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.17.0, release candidate #0

+1 (non-binding) - signatures ok - checksums ok - Pulsar master branch runs fine with staged maven artifacts - https://github.com/lhotari/pulsar/pull/177 - ran simpletest with bookkeeper-all-4.17.0 binaries ("bookkeeper localbookie 3" and "bookkeeper shell simpletest") - source package compila

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.16.5, release candidate #1

+1 (non-binding) - signatures ok - checksums ok - Pulsar master branch runs fine with staged maven artifacts - https://github.com/lhotari/pulsar/pull/178 - ran simpletest with bookkeeper-all-4.16.5 binaries ("bookkeeper localbookie 3" and "bookkeeper shell simpletest") - source package compilation

Re: [discuss] Proposal to Gradually Migrate from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5

Support for JUnit 5 tests was added in https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4197. Junit 4 and Junit 5 tests can co-exist in the code base. Junit 5 (Jupiter) test runner is used for test execution. While switching to use Junit 5, it's worth considering primarily using AssertJ for more comp

Re: [DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.16.6 release

On 2024/05/29 00:24:08 ZhangJian He wrote: > Yesterday, I manually triggered CI for branch/4.16, but it failed. I think > the root reason is gRPC's version is not compatible with netty. And > branch/4.16's gRPC contains several CVEs. I think we need to discuss > whether to update the gRPC version i

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for Updated JVM Support Strategy in Apache BookKeeper CI

For Pulsar 4.0 (scheduled for October), we need to migrate from Jetty 9 to Jetty 12 since Jetty 9 is not supported any more ([1]). This also impacts Bookkeeper since Pulsar bundles all dependencies in a single directory and this doesn't allow library conflicts between Pulsar and Bookkeeper. This

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for Updated JVM Support Strategy in Apache BookKeeper CI

I made PR https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4446 to upgrade minimum required version to Java 17. -Lari On 2024/05/27 01:17:14 ZhangJian He wrote: > Hi, BookKeepers, I want to propose and clarify a new CI strategy based on > our former practices. > > ## Current CI Jobs > > - **PR Valida

Re: BP-68 - Delete cookie as part of decommission API

I support this proposal. Thanks for driving this, Karthick. -Lari On 2024/09/04 06:01:13 Karthick wrote: > Hello Everyone, > Can you please look into the BP-68 > and let me know your > thoughts? > > *Quick Summary:* > The current decommission pro

question about the BookKeeper Proposals (BP) process

Hi all, I have a question about the BookKeeper Proposals (BP) process. The process description is here: https://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper-proposals#how-to-make-a-bp It says: "Once the BP is finalized, reviewed and approved by committers, the BP is accepted. The criterion for acc

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for Updated JVM Support Strategy in Apache BookKeeper CI

y-picks > without having to translate code into older java versions, until > 4.17.x gets discontinued. > > > Nicolò Boschi > > Il giorno mer 16 ott 2024 alle ore 20:53 Lari Hotari > ha scritto: > > > > Comparing Pulsar to BookKeeper doesn't make sense. P

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for Updated JVM Support Strategy in Apache BookKeeper CI

ote: > I think we should start with refactoring the BK client into a separate > module built with JDK 8 and then move BK to JDK 17. > FWIW this is similar to the Pulsar's JDK support for client/server parts. > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 4:22 AM Lari Hotari wrote: > > > For Pulsar

[DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.17.2 release

Hi all, BookKeeper 4.17.1 was released on June 26th, about 3 months ago, and I would like to discuss starting the 4.17.2 release to include some critical security and bug fixes. The main reason for driving this release is the need to have a new release for Pulsar 4.0 with a fix for Protobuf CVE-2

[DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.16.7 release

Hi all, BookKeeper 4.16.6 was released on June 26th, 3 months ago, and I would like to discuss starting the 4.16.7 release to include some critical security and bug fixes. The main reason for driving this release is the need to have a new release for Pulsar 3.0.7 with a fix for Protobuf CVE-2024-

Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrading BookKeeper to RocksDB 9.9.3 in 4.18.0 release

853 2 - https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/055b21ab110b4dfafee792ebab725869c38d55ed On 2025/04/17 08:21:49 Lari Hotari wrote: > Hello BookKeeper community, > > I'd like to propose upgrading our RocksDB dependency from the current > 7.10.2 version to 9.9.3. > Among all 9.x

[DISCUSS] Upgrading BookKeeper to RocksDB 9.9.3 in 4.18.0 release

Hello BookKeeper community, I'd like to propose upgrading our RocksDB dependency from the current 7.10.2 version to 9.9.3. Among all 9.x versions, I specifically chose 9.9.3 since it's currently the most recent version with multiple patch releases and it's readily available in Maven Central [1].

Re: [DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.18.0 release

Thanks for volunteering, Yong. I hope we would be able to upgrade RocksDB to 9.x in 4.18.0 release. That's been a long time plan, which has been blocked in the past. The barriers for this has been resolved. The previous issue was missing to set format_version to a specified value. WIP PR is htt

Re: [DISCUSS] BookKeeper 4.17.2 release

024年9月29日周日 15:28写道： > > > > > > > > > +1(binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > ZhangJian He > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 3:21 PM Hang Chen > > wrote: > > > > > > > &g