You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> on 2008/07/07 11:45:22 UTC
Jira decrufting bug day hugathon party
Hi guys,
with M3 rapidly descending upon us, it seems prudent to have an
all-day party on #qpid on partychat to dung it out a bit and resolve
old things. How does 1000 EDT / 1500 BST / 1400 UTC suit people?
Be there or get prodded about stuff via IM directly. ;)
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
Re: Jira decrufting bug day hugathon party
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> with M3 rapidly descending upon us, it seems prudent to have an
>> all-day party on #qpid on partychat to dung it out a bit and resolve
>> old things. How does 1000 EDT / 1500 BST / 1400 UTC suit people?
>
> Silence is aquiescene, bug triage super cleanup happy funtime will
> begin in 3 hours!
I've been having problems with partychat0-3 so am using
partychat4@gmail.com this afternoon
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
Re: Jira decrufting bug day hugathon party
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
Well, I thought that was quite productive, we collectively managed to
close 20 Jiras out of the 273 on the list and processed 93!
Still a few more to go though, so let's do this again on Thursday,
same bat-time, some bat-channel.
Log of the discussion from partychat for the interested:
[3:09 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, QPID-24, still a problem, yes?
[3:09 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rob: how about QPID-42?
[3:09 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] Rob, Aidan I thought
Arnaud did some work for the dtx stuff
[3:09 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] not sure how complete it is
[3:09 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] will do in a bit
[3:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rajith: I don't think it's complete, so it
should still be open
[3:10 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 42 I'd have to check...
[3:10 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] let me bring up an IDE with the code in
[3:11 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 24 is still an issue for the java Broker
[3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner Thanks. Please update it either way, since
it sounds like you have some more information than what's in the bug
[3:11 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] agreed it should be open -
can we make an action item for arnaud to comment on the JIRA to let us
know what is done and what needs to be done
[3:11 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] aidan: i can read the code if that's
what you mean
[3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner rajith: if you want to mail him, feel
free. I'm only lookign for jira status changes just now though.
[3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: I do.
[3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner carl: qpid-106, does the c++ broker do SSL now?
[3:12 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] no
[3:13 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] there is a guy in the
community that has done most of it
[3:13 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] but the patch is not complete yet
[3:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok. qpid-107 needs split.
[3:14 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 42 is still an issue on the Java Broker
[3:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner oh? might be useful to update with that information.
[3:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: can you split qpid 107 into a java
broker and a c++ (sorry, you did the java work so you get the fun ;>)
[3:14 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] ack
[3:14 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] Rob are u taking over
QPID-24? or are we gonna assign it to arnaud for an update?
[3:15 pm] aidan.x.skinner I'm pretty sure QPD-142 (transactions not
atomic in the face of failover) is fixed
[3:15 pm] aidan.x.skinner at least for the java client
[3:16 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] only the 08/09 client?
[3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner does it not throw in 0-10?
[3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs?
[3:17 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I'm not doing anything on 24
[3:17 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] rob - ok cool - aidan can
we assign that to arnaud - I assume u are updating as we go
[3:17 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] aidan let me ping rafi
[3:17 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] i would suggest we don't assign
anything to anybody yet
[3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should work out priorities first
[3:18 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] +1 to not assigning
[3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] people can be free to take them if they want
[3:18 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] rob agreed
[3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I'm sure we'll hit 24 when we do 0-10 support
[3:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, 142 could still be a problem i think
so moving on
[3:18 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] yep
[3:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about QPID-144?
[3:20 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] tumbleweeds
[3:20 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] sorry slow loading
[3:21 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Think this is still an issue .. will
take note of ID as I think a newer jira superseds this
[3:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks
[3:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-218, the python client now speaks 0-9
doesn't it?
[3:22 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] aidan Rafi is the best to
answer that question
[3:22 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] but I think it does
[3:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner yes, good, next.
[3:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about ruby?
[3:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner for QPID-219, also 0-9 support
[3:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] For 0-9 I would say if things don't
support it now; they never will
[3:25 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: I'd guess the answer is mostly yes.
[3:25 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: but it's a guess
[3:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner well, i looked in teh code and the test is
only for 0-8
[3:26 pm] aidan.x.skinner close as WONTFIX?
[3:27 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I'd leave it.. it may be an easy
route for a new ruby developer
[3:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner Martin: QPID-272 is... open? dead?
[3:27 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] before taking on the 0-10 changes
[3:28 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] We need to test it but I fear it may
still be an issue.
[3:28 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Should like to other client
exception handling QPid-940>?
[3:28 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah
[3:29 pm] aidan.x.skinner right, QPID-287, rhs?
[3:30 pm] aidan.x.skinner it talks about the 0-9 branch so I'm
presuming it's irrelevant
[3:30 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] I think that's a safe guess.
[3:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] .. it is also talking about a code
generator.. but doesn't say which one
[3:30 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] aidan its irrelevamt
[3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] s/aidan/aidan:/
[3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner next up is qpid-329
[3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Feature Request
[3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner I don't understand it
[3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Do we just keep it?
[3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner i think so
[3:31 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think that one requires AMQP level changes
[3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner qpid-363 then
[3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner has anybody looked at/applied that patch?
[3:32 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] No, but the question is still open.
[3:32 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Should we throw an exception or is
returning null valid?
[3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, having read it a bit more carefully
i feel ambilavent about that
[3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner next
[3:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-370, spec violation?
[3:33 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] as with 371
[3:33 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] don't fix
[3:33 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Extra broker over head but for
strict AMQP I think we need to do it.
[3:33 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] the naming rules are relaxed for 0-10...
[3:34 pm] aidan.x.skinner for 370 and 371?
[3:34 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] y
[3:35 pm] aidan.x.skinner awesome
[3:35 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-380, I think this is still an issue
[3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] agreed
[3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] It has been partially done
[3:36 pm] aidan.x.skinner can you add some information about what
you did and what still needs doing? thanks
[3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] grr
[3:36 pm] aidan.x.skinner
[3:37 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-393, rob? how's the alerting in the
refactored broker lookign?
[3:37 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] hope it is better than M2.1!
[3:39 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, martin, QPID-429, client timeouts
[3:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner I thikn we're better than we were, is this
all exposed now?
[3:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rob: and with QPID-430, does the age
alerting work with the house keeping threads for expiry now?
[3:41 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 430 is still an issue and should be
wired to the housekeeping
[3:41 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 430 is still an issue
[3:41 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 429 is better but we need to bring
the 09/8 and 10 together
[3:42 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 431 is my bad!
[3:42 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] still a problem
[3:42 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 393 is not done
[3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-437, does the c++ broker implement
mandatory yet?
[3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner I sort of presume it must for 0-10 support
[3:43 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] I'll check.
[3:44 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks
[3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] well - it ain't called mandatory anymore
[3:44 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] and C++ broker doesn't do 08/9:)
[3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I would say kill that JIRA
[3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] since it is talking to 0-8/0-9 compliance
[3:44 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] ack
[3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 0-10 compliance if a whole different
kettle of fish
[3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] gsim says it does not implement mandatory
[3:45 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks
[3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] that would be a different defect though
[3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] or the 0-10 equivalent (discard-unroutable)
[3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think we should raise non-ambiguous
0-10 complaince defects
[3:46 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: QPID-469?
[3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] fine by me
[3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] what about 462?
[3:46 pm] aidan.x.skinner does the new broker record relidvery per
message per queue?
[3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] what about 462?
[3:46 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] keep up
[3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Aidan: 469 should be fixed
[3:47 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 9already fixed that is)
[3:47 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] No-one mentuioned 462 yet
[3:47 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Ah ok.. sorry local context
[3:47 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] It is a duplicate of the problem in QPid 545
[3:48 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] My only point on 462 is that as it is
you couldn't change anything... but if you were talking a bout an
auto-delete queue with an exclusive consumer you could actually
discard the messages on arrival at the queue
[3:48 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (not the same as an exclusive queue)
[3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner Did anybody ever fix QPID-494? (broker
doesn't set exit code when it fails to start)
[3:49 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 494 : nope
[3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, just realised i could check that myself
[3:49 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 462 . could you not discard message
on arrival to queue if it was persistent?
[3:50 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, QPID-497, pything test for codec.py. rhs?
[3:50 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Jumping back to 469
[3:51 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I QueueEntry delegates to the
message for redelivered.
[3:51 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] so I'd say it is still an issue.
[3:52 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] oops - so it does
[3:52 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] that should be fixed then
[3:52 pm] partychat0 [cctrieloff@gmail.com] rhs: just goy up from
desk, talking to justin on an issue
[3:53 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'll skip the python ones then
[3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: can you reopen that one and paste
this conversation into it?
[3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] which one 469?
[3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah
[3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] back now
[3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-497 can be closed
[3:55 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, how about 498?
[3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-498 can be closed as well
[3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-506 can be also be closed
[3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-518 as well
[3:56 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-519 can be rolled up with any
other general documentation issues
[3:56 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] or just closed
[3:56 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, can you make those changes (I got as
far as 506)
[3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner Martin: 509 I think is still a problem, y/n?
[3:57 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] indeed
[3:57 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] yes
[3:57 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should really fix that!
[3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner please set priorty appropriately then
[3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner "major" is actually "medium"
[3:58 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: about QPID-519?
[3:58 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes?
[3:58 pm] aidan.x.skinner closeable?
[3:59 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes
[3:59 pm] aidan.x.skinner also, QPID-522, does ant generate javadoc for us?
[3:59 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] good question, lemmie check
[4:00 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] we should really add javadoc generation
to an automated build somewhere
[4:00 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should really add javadoc
[4:00 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] rhs we could do that in CC
and we can add a link to it in our wiki
[4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] it would be nice to have it auto
publish to somewhere public
[4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, anybody know anything about QPID-539 -
does headersexchange implement isBound properly now?
[4:01 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] similar to the way we have
a link to the rpms
[4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] skipping over 524?
[4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, i don't want to start that discussion
[4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner and the next few are c++ thigns i know
aren't implemented
[4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think we should just close that JIRA
[4:01 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 539 no
[4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidain: "ant doc" generates javadoc
with a whole lot of warnings
[4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (524 hould be closed, that is)
[4:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: shock
[4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] since a) the situation is now even worse
[4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] and we currently have no plans to do
anything about it
[4:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok
[4:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner 545 is still an issue, yes?
[4:03 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] yes
[4:03 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Yes - there is now an alternative however
[4:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner please add details of said alternative to jira
[4:03 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] i.e. use selectors on bind between
queue and exchange
[4:04 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: did you not do QPID-570?
[4:04 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] two ticks was in the page fold
[4:04 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] aidan: I think the JIRA as is still
stands i think we need a new JIRA on utilising the binding option
[4:05 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] a yes/no.. yes we did but it was
done in docbook and no because we've not maintained it
[4:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner so no to both, rob, can you raise the new one then?
[4:06 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: QPID-572, still a problem?
[4:06 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I could Let me do that now...
[4:06 pm] aidan.x.skinner Was there a test written for it?
[4:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: thanks
[4:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: my memory of that is hazy, but I
*think* it was fixed...
[4:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: same for 573
[4:10 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 572 is probably less of an issue
with the replacement of the CSDM
[4:10 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] but as it was a narley race
condition to start with it might be hard to test for
[4:11 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] s/narley/gnarley/
[4:11 pm] partychat0 "martin" meant but as it was a gnarley race
condition to start with it might be hard to test for
[4:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: what news of 578?
[4:13 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I think it is still pending
[4:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner also, QPID-580, I'm unclear as to what the
coments mean
[4:15 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Just looking at code
[4:15 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] for 578
[4:17 pm] aidan.x.skinner right, and 602? I presume we still need to
add that test?
[4:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: how about QPID-641?are you testing
against 0-10 field table encoding now?
[4:19 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes
[4:19 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: that can be closed
[4:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner sweet
[4:20 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about QPID-656?
it's a 0-10 java client / C++ broker bug about x-match
[4:21 pm] partychat0 [rajith77@gmail.com] no idea
[4:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: QPID-659, is selector performance in
the new broker better / acceptable?
[4:21 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] it should be
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] certainly the bug described in there
should be gone
[4:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner is there a test?
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] for 659 - no
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but selectors work differently now...
[4:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'm commenting on the jira and leaving it now
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think that can be closed
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] it talks about pre-delivery queues
[4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] which no longer exist
[4:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, but it's really about selector performance
[4:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner which is a major thing for at least one of our users
[4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] no it's not (about performance)
[4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: how about 669?
[4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] if you read the JIRA it's about an
inifinite loop
[4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] If a message that doesn't match a the
consumers selector arrives on the queue the asynchronous delivery
manager will not terminate.
[4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Due to the use of a pre-delivery queue
a message that is not desired by any consumer will stick in the queue.
This will then cause the async delivery process to loop consuming a
large amount of CPU. The async process will not stop because there are
'message on the queue' and 'active consumers'.
[4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, but the other option would be to
raise a jira to write a test to test that it's faster
[4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think there is room for a JIRA on
wiriting performance tests for selectors
[4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but that is a completely separate issue
[4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] the actual performace of selecting will
be no better
[4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but there is no longer an inifinite loop bug
[4:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok
[4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (or if there is, not the same one )
[4:26 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-1169 filed
[4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: also, is QPID-673 still an issue?
[4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner (talking about needing a Session interface)
[4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner and 675 to 676?
[4:29 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: QPID-677? that's presumably
needing upped to critical?
[4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] There needs to be a broker test
written for it
[4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] IIRC we have made changes that fix this
[4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] it isn't critical
[4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] The broker shouldn't be editing the
properties anywaay
[4:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok
[4:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'm drawing a line here
[4:41 pm] aidan.x.skinner well done everyone, we closed out 20 jiras
[4:41 pm] aidan.x.skinner I'll send mail about picking this up again later
Re: Jira decrufting bug day hugathon party
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
2008/7/8 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> with M3 rapidly descending upon us, it seems prudent to have an
>> all-day party on #qpid on partychat to dung it out a bit and resolve
>> old things. How does 1000 EDT / 1500 BST / 1400 UTC suit people?
>
> Silence is aquiescene, bug triage super cleanup happy funtime will
> begin in 3 hours!
>
> - Aidan
> --
> Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
> http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
Sorry, I have a rogue filter that sucks away all misc emails with
'JIRA' in the title. Will have to adjust as it is clearly out of
control!
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: Jira decrufting bug day hugathon party
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> wrote:
> with M3 rapidly descending upon us, it seems prudent to have an
> all-day party on #qpid on partychat to dung it out a bit and resolve
> old things. How does 1000 EDT / 1500 BST / 1400 UTC suit people?
Silence is aquiescene, bug triage super cleanup happy funtime will
begin in 3 hours!
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid