[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13741) AuditLoggerIntegrationTest hardening

["ASF subversion and git services (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13741?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16982817#comment-16982817 ] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on SOLR-13741:
--------------------------------------------------------

Commit cfd0f0da9c9bf08f0a7ba5767cb37ba248db8082 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_8_3 from Chris M. Hostetter
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=cfd0f0d ]

SOLR-13741: Harden AuditLoggerIntegrationTest

(cherry picked from commit 63e9bcf5d150e6324e5133a001613bd7f738a183)


> AuditLoggerIntegrationTest hardening
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-13741
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13741
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Test
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Chris M. Hostetter
>            Assignee: Chris M. Hostetter
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: master (9.0), 8.4
>
>         Attachments: SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch, SOLR-13741.patch
>
>
> This issue started out as an investigation into possible test or code ugs uncovered while hardening AuditLoggerIntegrationTest against timing related failures.  the bugs that were identified as being in code were spun of into their own issues for tracking purposes to raise visibility to end users.
> this issue remains as for tracking the final hardening of the test and fixing of some test bugs found along the way.
> Original jira description below...
> ----
> A while back i saw a weird non-reproducible failure from AuditLoggerIntegrationTest.  When i started reading through that code, 2 things jumped out at me:
> # the way the 'delay' option works is brittle, and makes assumptions about CPU scheduling that aren't neccessarily going to be true (and also suffers from the problem that Thread.sleep isn't garunteed to sleep as long as you ask it too)
> # the way the existing {{waitForAuditEventCallbacks(number)}} logic works by checking the size of a (List) {{buffer}} of recieved events in a sleep/poll loop, until it contains at least N items -- but the code that adds items to that buffer in the async Callback thread async _before_ the code that updates other state variables (like the global {{count}} and the patch specific {{resourceCounts}}) meaning that a test waiting on 3 events could "see" 3 events added to the buffer, but calling {{assertEquals(3, receiver.getTotalCount())}} could subsequently fail because that variable hadn't been udpated yet.
> #2 was the source of the failures I was seeing, and while a quick fix for that specific problem would be to update all other state _before_ adding the event to the buffer, I set out to try and make more general improvements to the test:
> * eliminate the dependency on sleep loops by {{await}}-ing on concurrent data structures
> * harden the assertions made about the expected events recieved (updating some test methods that currently just assert the number of events recieved)
> * add new assertions that _only_ the expected events are recieved.
> In the process of doing this, I've found several oddities/descrepencies between things the test currently claims/asserts, and what *actually* happens under more rigerous scrutiny/assertions.
> I'll attach a patch shortly that has my (in progress) updates and inlcudes copious nocommits about things seem suspect.  the summary of these concerns is:
> * SolrException status codes that do not match what the existing test says they should (but doesn't assert)
> * extra AuditEvents occuring that the existing test does not expect
> * AuditEvents for incorrect credentials that do not at all match the expected AuditEvent in the existing test -- which the current test seems to miss in it's assertions because it's picking up some extra events from triggered by previuos requests earlier in the test that just happen to also match the asserctions.
> ...it's not clear to me if the test logic is correct and these are "code bugs" or if the test is faulty.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org