You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@phoenix.apache.org by James Heather <ja...@mendeley.com> on 2015/10/02 16:34:57 UTC
Fixed bug in PMetaDataImpl
Hi all (@James T in particular),
I've submitted a pull request to fix the bug I reported in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2256 concerning a failing
unit test in Java 8.
It was a genuine bug in PMetaDataImpl that just happened to sneak
through the tests in Java 7 but not Java 8. The traversal order of a
collection was significant for picking up the bug, and it just happens
that it changed between Java versions, and the new ordering caused the
test to fail.
There was another bug in the same bit of code, which I've also fixed as
a Brucie bonus, and added a test for, where the eviction policy could
cause too many things to get evicted unnecessarily.
James
Re: Fixed bug in PMetaDataImpl
Posted by Cody Marcel <cm...@salesforce.com>.
I think that's a duplicate bug. Can we consolidate them?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2172
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Patch looks great - thanks so much, James. Would you mind prefixing the
> commit message with "PHOENIX-2256" as that's what ties the pull to the
> JIRA? I'll get this committed today.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:34 AM, James Heather <ja...@mendeley.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all (@James T in particular),
>>
>> I've submitted a pull request to fix the bug I reported in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2256 concerning a failing
>> unit test in Java 8.
>>
>> It was a genuine bug in PMetaDataImpl that just happened to sneak through
>> the tests in Java 7 but not Java 8. The traversal order of a collection was
>> significant for picking up the bug, and it just happens that it changed
>> between Java versions, and the new ordering caused the test to fail.
>>
>> There was another bug in the same bit of code, which I've also fixed as a
>> Brucie bonus, and added a test for, where the eviction policy could cause
>> too many things to get evicted unnecessarily.
>>
>> James
>>
>
>
Re: Fixed bug in PMetaDataImpl
Posted by James Heather <ja...@mendeley.com>.
Commit message updated.
On 02/10/15 17:02, James Taylor wrote:
> Patch looks great - thanks so much, James. Would you mind prefixing
> the commit message with "PHOENIX-2256" as that's what ties the pull to
> the JIRA? I'll get this committed today.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:34 AM, James Heather
> <james.heather@mendeley.com <ma...@mendeley.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all (@James T in particular),
>
> I've submitted a pull request to fix the bug I reported in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2256 concerning a
> failing unit test in Java 8.
>
> It was a genuine bug in PMetaDataImpl that just happened to sneak
> through the tests in Java 7 but not Java 8. The traversal order of
> a collection was significant for picking up the bug, and it just
> happens that it changed between Java versions, and the new
> ordering caused the test to fail.
>
> There was another bug in the same bit of code, which I've also
> fixed as a Brucie bonus, and added a test for, where the eviction
> policy could cause too many things to get evicted unnecessarily.
>
> James
>
>
Re: Fixed bug in PMetaDataImpl
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Patch looks great - thanks so much, James. Would you mind prefixing the
commit message with "PHOENIX-2256" as that's what ties the pull to the
JIRA? I'll get this committed today.
James
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:34 AM, James Heather <ja...@mendeley.com>
wrote:
> Hi all (@James T in particular),
>
> I've submitted a pull request to fix the bug I reported in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2256 concerning a failing
> unit test in Java 8.
>
> It was a genuine bug in PMetaDataImpl that just happened to sneak through
> the tests in Java 7 but not Java 8. The traversal order of a collection was
> significant for picking up the bug, and it just happens that it changed
> between Java versions, and the new ordering caused the test to fail.
>
> There was another bug in the same bit of code, which I've also fixed as a
> Brucie bonus, and added a test for, where the eviction policy could cause
> too many things to get evicted unnecessarily.
>
> James
>