> I apologize I did not mention those things explicitly. All the places where
> sstable files are accessed directly would have to be refactored.
Works for me
> Speaking about the implementation, one idea I was thinking about was that
> the factories for formats are registered using Java's native
Did I hear my name? đ
Sorry Josh, you are wrong :-) 2 out of 30 in two months were real bugs
discovered by pflaky tests and one of them was very hard to hit. So 6-7%. I
think that report I sent back then didnât come through so the topic was
cleared in a follow up mail by Benjamin; with a lot of swe
>
> Under "Migrating existing cassandra.yaml warn/fail thresholdsâ, I recently
> added a few things which are basically guardrails, so should be included in
> this set; they are configured by track_warnings (coordinator_read_size,
> local_read_size, and row_index_size). With track_warnings I setup
To your point Jacek, I believe in the run up to 4.0 Ekaterina did some
analysis and something like 18% (correct me if I'm wrong here) of the test
failures we were considering "flaky tests" were actual product defects in
the database. With that in mind, we should be uncomfortable cutting a
release i
Being able to configure guardrails dynamically makes a lot of sense to me,
I have updated the CEP to mention that. I think we don't need to decide yet
whether it would be done through JMX and/or virtual tables.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 20:35, C. Scott Andreas wrote:
> Re: "I think you all know my f
David,
I apologize I did not mention those things explicitly. All the places where
sstable files are accessed directly would have to be refactored.
Regarding TableMetrics - currently it includes many metrics, some of them
are unrelated to sstables at all, but there are metrics which are specific
>
> we already have a way to confirm flakiness on circle by running the test
> repeatedly N times. Like 100 or 500. That has proven to work very well
> so far, at least for me. #collaborating #justfyi
>
It does not prove that it is the test flakiness. It still can be a bug in
the code which occurs
