Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Hello, Igniters!

Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to the
handler, which stops the node and fails the test.

Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
`getFailureHandler()` method.

If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the
ticket [1].

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton,

If I understood this idea right, try-catch will not work because failure
can be thrown into an Ignite thread pool, which catches any exceptions and
errors.

 Which code block will do a throw?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 12:16, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict
> try-catch with a check"?
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be
> > less readable than no-op handler.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >
> > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from
> > noop
> > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from
> > saying
> > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > >
> > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > >
> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Really, why noop?
> > > >
> > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override
> > > default
> > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > >
> > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are
> trying
> > to
> > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > >
> > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
> > > > написал:
> > > >
> > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch
> block,
> > > of
> > > > course.
> > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > > > exception.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >
> > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it
> with
> > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Anton,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger
> > failure
> > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go.
> > That's
> > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old
> value
> > of
> > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
> > > > >> changed to
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write
> here
> > > or
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>]

Anton,

I really like your perfectionism. But why should we make all things perfect
in a single fix? The change you want to roll back is definitely useful for
the project: the majority of our tests do not hide potential bugs under
no-op handler anymore, and the small number of tests require additional
thorough investigation. So, the change looks complete for me. And of course
we are to file a separate ticket regarding those 100+ tests you mentioned
and work on it without rushing.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 16:41, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain
> why it's a better choice).
> Explicit confirmation required.
>
> Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these
> > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> >
> > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > overridden method now.
> >
> > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it
> Ok
> > for you?
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> > Why
> > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why
> tests
> > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > >
> > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > >
> > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any
> better
> > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
> > > without no-op handler?
> > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> everything
> > > properly.
> > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > >
> > >
> > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able
> to
> > > start doing this after rollback.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> > Why
> > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it
> is
> > > > > assumed".
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> > > failures
> > > > as
> > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because
> > you
> > > > > know
> > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better
> than
> > > me.
> > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements.
> And
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent.
> If
> > > you
> > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince
> > me
> > > > and
> > > > > > others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made
> > > really
> > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful
> failure
> > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix
> > these
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what
> problems
> > > the
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> > > rollback
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At
> > least,
> > > > > such
> > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing
> for
> > > each
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent
> merge
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks
> > louder
> > > > than
> > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea,
> > > which
> > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set
> > new
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > successful
> > > in
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments
> > why
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in
> case
> > > you
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests
> > > better.
> > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago.
> Please
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New
> commit
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> > > transfer
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > > > expectation
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and
> > replace
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one
> looks
> > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+
> > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after
> changing
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to
> > detect
> > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep
> hanged
> > > grid
> > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where
> "no-op"
> > > > better
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting
> node
> > > with
> > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed
> > > default
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start
> > every
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop
> > > where
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > > > triggered,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be
> checked
> > in
> > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> > > > inside
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then
> > test
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a
> > correct
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> Ryabov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception
> > thrown.
> > > > Such
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> everything
> > > goes
> > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests
> it
> > > > > does't
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove
> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason
> of
> > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and
> > > fails
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > something
> > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Ivan,

Got it.
Thanks for the explanation.

> mostly I would like an opinion from Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author

Dmitriy, can you answer?
I can do this improvement by myself, by if you want to do it - go ahead.


чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 12:11, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Nikolay,
>
> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> patch then let's do it.
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >
> > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >
> > Sorry, one more time.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >
> > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > >
> > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > >
> > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing
> in
> > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Ivan.
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a>
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > >
> > > > I support this idea.
> > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >
> > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> product(Ignite
> > > > and others).
> > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> with
> > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > there.
> > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> suggest
> > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly.
> So,
> > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> sure:
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> do it
> > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> that
> > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> But
> > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> better
> > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> and
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > > code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> By
> > > this
> > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> tests,
> > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed
> to
> > > > have with
> > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> here? Why
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> problem, as
> > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > > will
> > > > join
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> care too
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we
> need
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> no-op
> > > or
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> proper
> > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > > this.
> > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > absolutely
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> believe
> > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > > cases
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> or
> > > grep
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate
> my
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> much to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> just
> > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> and say
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> or she
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> do can
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > should
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> it
> > > > before
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > > after
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> tests
> > > to
> > > > double
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > someone
> > > > else
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> project
> > > > code but
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust
> way,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> existing
> > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> better
> > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> to
> > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> to
> > > > made and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code
> base
> > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > > will
> > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> massive
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility
> of
> > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> to
> > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things
> for
> > > > you,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > > check
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> mechanism
> > > for
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> I ask
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > > activate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> reopen the
> > > > issue
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> fix was
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > Shangareev
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> Иван
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> like to
> > > > respell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests
> are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > other's
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> people
> > > > can do
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> commit
> > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > improvements
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > > please feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> does
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> good
> > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> positive
> > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> me to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author
> or
> > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> ask
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> provide
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> fix of
> > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> of the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > something,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> demo
> > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> contribution
> > > if
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> fixes
> > > > later
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > option
> > > > - ok
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> changes
> > > > allow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > > what
> > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > issues
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> reviewer, to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> test we
> > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> changes
> > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > > because
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > > default long
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> the
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> will
> > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> inside
> > > a
> > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> will do
> > > a
> > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> *bad
> > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> failure
> > > you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:39
> > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason
> to
> > > > fallback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> test
> > > > become
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > ticket
> > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> files in
> > > > PR and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> affected
> > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > > test
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > custom
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> simulation
> > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > > problem",
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> share
> > > some
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think
> wrapping
> > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.,
> > > 9:26
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me
> remind
> > > > you that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to
> Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > remaining tests
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> г.,
> > > > 23:48
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why
> noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> > > failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise
> some
> > > > flag,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make
> test
> > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop,
> you'll
> > > get
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve,
> isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г.
> > > 23:25
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to
> > > > check the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found
> not
> > > > equals to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018 г.
> > > в
> > > > 23:21,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution
> is
> > > > not clear
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > > expect
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> block
> > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > г.
> > > > в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in
> these
> > > > classes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> like
> > > > node stop or
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> and it
> > > > fails test
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need
> > > > no-op handler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > > г. в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if
> you
> > > > find in
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > (=NoOp), feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hello,
> > > > Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Today the
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> handler,
> > > > which
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > stops
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over
> 100
> > > > tests kept
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> you'll
> > > > found a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Nikolay,

Answering your questions a couple of emails ago.

Only one valid reason to avoid NoOp it the risk
- we don't correctly understand test meaning by class name, we don't catch
it's expected flow and
- there is some test which uses NoOp now, but should not.

Any failure in such test included to set of NoOp handlers test can be
hidden and the test will pass for whatever reason, e.g. poor validation of
expected behavior. So suggested analog to this is muted failures, which
runs on TC but don't signal us that something is wrong.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:53, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:

> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> always require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>
> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> test,
> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> checked?
> - failure handler influence, etc.
>
> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate the idea.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
>> Dmitrii,
>>
>> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>> for
>> >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
>> no-op
>> to have a proper handler?
>>
>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dmitrii Ryabov,
>> >
>> > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
>> > looks good to me so far.
>> >
>> > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
>> like
>> > we
>> > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>> > >
>> > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>> for
>> > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > >
>> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
>> > >
>> > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>> > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Nikolay,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
>> that
>> > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
>> > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
>> from
>> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
>> > > > > patch then let's do it.
>> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
>> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
>> > > > nothing
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
>> > > > practical
>> > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Ivan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>> (and
>> > > > create
>> > > > > a>
>> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I support this idea.
>> > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
>> > how to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>> > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
>> > > > > product(Ignite
>> > > > > > > > and others).
>> > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
>> > places
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>> > > > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
>> > got a
>> > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
>> > noop
>> > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
>> > covered
>> > > > > > > > > there.
>> > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
>> > how to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
>> > can
>> > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
>> > > > costly.
>> > > > > So,
>> > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
>> > for
>> > > > > sure:
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>> (and
>> > > > create
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
>> and
>> > then
>> > > > > do it
>> > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
>> > guarantee
>> > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
>> > believe
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>> > failure.
>> > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
>> > details
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
>> > better.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
>> > better.
>> > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > still, it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>> something
>> > with
>> > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
>> > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>> > implementation as
>> > > > > well.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
>> > Way, -
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > I'll
>> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
>> > stop
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > nonsense. If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>> > anti-patterns in
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > community,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
>> (only)
>> > > > perfect
>> > > > > > > code.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>> > failure.
>> > > > > By
>> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > tests,
>> > > > > > > > and we’re
>> > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
>> no-op
>> > was
>> > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
>> > > > allowed
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > have with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>> disagreements
>> > > > > here? Why
>> > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>> > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > unconditionally
>> > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>> > reverting
>> > > > > > > > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
>> > Dmitrii
>> > > > R.?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>> mutes
>> > > > > problem, as
>> > > > > > > > well, to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
>> Bot.
>> > Is
>> > > > he
>> > > > > > > > deserved to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
>> > guess,
>> > > > no,
>> > > > > > > > especially
>> > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>> better
>> > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
>> this
>> > > > thread
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > join
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
>> > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
>> > you
>> > > > > > > > contribute,- more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
>> > don't
>> > > > > care too
>> > > > > > > > much
>> > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
>> > facts
>> > > > we
>> > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > to do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>> > negative
>> > > > > > > > feedback, people
>> > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
>> > without
>> > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
>> > > > sharing
>> > > > > > > this.
>> > > > > > > > Result:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>> have an
>> > > > > > > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > perfect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>> > contributors? I
>> > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > not, and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>> > principle'.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
>> > > > thinking
>> > > > > > > > about Apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
>> class
>> > for
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > cases
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
>> current
>> > > > > > > > implementation:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
>> > with IDE
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > grep
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > search.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>> > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>> > related
>> > > > > much to
>> > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
>> > will
>> > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > come to the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > list
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>> > solution
>> > > > > and say
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
>> > better he
>> > > > > or she
>> > > > > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>> those
>> > who
>> > > > > do can
>> > > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>> > do-ocracy
>> > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > (and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
>> > (we had
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > before
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
>> > after
>> > > > > > > > re-checks of
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
>> > > > handler
>> > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
>> > Anton,
>> > > > > > > Andrew,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>> 100/6 =
>> > 18
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > double
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
>> if
>> > we
>> > > > go
>> > > > > > > > together. And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
>> > enforces
>> > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > else
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
>> > improve
>> > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > code but
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
>> > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
>> when
>> > we
>> > > > > expect
>> > > > > > > > critical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused
>> by
>> > the
>> > > > > > > > imperfect logic
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
>> more
>> > > > robust
>> > > > > way,
>> > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > using
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
>> > the
>> > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > flaws,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
>> > pattern.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
>> > with
>> > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > styling?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
>> > tickets
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > cleanup
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > mess
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
>> Maxim
>> > time
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > made and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>> > > > > "improvements".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
>> keeping
>> > > > code
>> > > > > base
>> > > > > > > > clean.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
>> > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>> Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
>> perfect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
>> > > > > continue :)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
>> > > > commits
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > future.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>> > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
>> before
>> > > > > massive
>> > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
>> > > > possibility
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > using any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
>> > report
>> > > > > > > attached.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>> > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
>> this
>> > (get
>> > > > > rid
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
>> > > > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
>> > you try
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > research a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to
>> do
>> > > > things
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > you,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
>> > ticket
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
>> > noop. It
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > locate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
>> > > > > mechanism
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > failing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>> > Vinogradov
>> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
>> > problem in
>> > > > > saving
>> > > > > > > > No-Op for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
>> > with
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
>> > choice.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
>> > are not
>> > > > > ok!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
>> > change,
>> > > > > I ask
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
>> > > > intentionally
>> > > > > > > > activate
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
>> > without
>> > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
>> fix,
>> > > > > reopen the
>> > > > > > > > issue
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
>> > tests
>> > > > > fail.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
>> before
>> > the
>> > > > > fix was
>> > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>> Eduard
>> > > > > > > Shangareev
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
>> problem
>> > in
>> > > > > saving
>> > > > > > > > No-Op for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
>> > Павлухин
>> > > > > Иван
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
>> > would
>> > > > > like to
>> > > > > > > > respell
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
>> > no-op
>> > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
>> > Dmitriy
>> > > > > Pavlov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
>> these
>> > > > tests
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
>> failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
>> > revert
>> > > > > > > other's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
>> lot
>> > of
>> > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > can do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
>> > I've
>> > > > > > > > contributed? I
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > hope
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
>> > just
>> > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > further
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
>> some
>> > > > > > > > improvements
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > later.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
>> by
>> > > > veto,
>> > > > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > justify
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
>> > > > community,
>> > > > > > > > please feel
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > free
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
>> > > > Павлухин
>> > > > > > > Иван <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
>> > what
>> > > > > does
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added
>> a
>> > very
>> > > > > good
>> > > > > > > > thing --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
>> > think it
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
>> overweight
>> > > > > positive
>> > > > > > > > result? And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 14:03,
>> > Anton
>> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
>> > to ask
>> > > > > me to
>> > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PR
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not
>> an
>> > > > author
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > reviewer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
>> > member,
>> > > > > ask
>> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
>> to
>> > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
>> > merge
>> > > > > fix of
>> > > > > > > > unknown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
>> > explanation
>> > > > > of the
>> > > > > > > > problem
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
>> > rollback
>> > > > > > > > something,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
>> > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
>> > 1:40 PM
>> > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
>> PR
>> > to
>> > > > > demo
>> > > > > > > > your idea.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
>> > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
>> discuss
>> > not
>> > > > > > > Dmitrii
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
>> > failure
>> > > > > fixes
>> > > > > > > > later
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
>> the
>> > only
>> > > > > > > option
>> > > > > > > > - ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> > 13:35,
>> > > > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
>> these
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > allow
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
>> acceptable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
>> > have to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > ready to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
>> this
>> > way
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > was the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
>> to
>> > hide
>> > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
>> > > > > reviewer, to
>> > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
>> > what
>> > > > > test we
>> > > > > > > > solved by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
>> > rollback
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > in case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
>> at
>> > 1:10
>> > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
>> > > > rollback
>> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
>> no-op
>> > > > became
>> > > > > > > > default long
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > time
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
>> > authors of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a
>> PR
>> > to
>> > > > > > > > demonstrate your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
>> > believe it
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
>> > pool
>> > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > node.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
>> г. в
>> > > > 13:05,
>> > > > > > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
>> > block
>> > > > > will do
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > throw?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
>> > test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
>> make
>> > the
>> > > > > *bad
>> > > > > > > > *test even
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
>> > correct
>> > > > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
>> expect
>> > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > have to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
>> > you to
>> > > > > > > > rollback these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
>> > 2018 at
>> > > > > 12:39
>> > > > > > > > PM Andrey
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
>> > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > handler as a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is
>> the
>> > > > reason
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > fallback
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
>> > these
>> > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > become
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > failed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Yes, currently handler handles exception in the same way as
'GridAbstractTest', so, it will work from any thread.

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г., 15:18 Ilya Lantukh ilantukh@gridgain.com:

> Dmitry,
>
> It doesn't make sense to run that test now because the root cause of it's
> failure had been fixed.
>
> You should verify that getting an unhandled exception in any system thread
> leads to the failure of currently running test.
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662
>>
>> 10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" <dp...@apache.org>
>> написал:
>>
>> Reverted.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened
>>
>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>>
>>
>> > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.
>> >
>> > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both
>> > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it
>> is
>> > the only option and it should be reverted.
>> >
>> > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so
>> reverting
>> > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
>> > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come
>> and
>> > give feedback.
>> >
>> > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it
>> later.
>> >
>> > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >> Dmitriy,
>> >>
>> >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
>> >> Why it still not reverted?
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
>> >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi Ilya,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > thank you for noticing.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework
>> >> fix
>> >> > >
>> >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
>> >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
>> >> > > correctly failing test.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Sincerely,
>> >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote
>> a
>> >> test
>> >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following
>> text
>> >> > into
>> >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > [2018-12-07
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
>> >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
>> >> > configured
>> >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [],
>> failureCtx=FailureContext
>> >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException:
>> Unable to
>> >> > find
>> >> > > > consistentId by UUID
>> [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
>> >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by
>> UUID
>> >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
>> >> > > >     at
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
>> >> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> >> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic
>> weekend,
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > then
>> >> > > > > on
>> >> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a
>> positive
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > >> constructive manner.
>> >> > > > > Agree
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> nizhikov@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Anton.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
>> >> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in
>> all
>> >> > tests.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> >> research to
>> >> > > > > > > demonstrate
>> >> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> >> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here
>> >> because
>> >> > of
>> >> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
>> >> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
>> >> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no
>> massive
>> >> > > > > > duplication
>> >> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
>> >> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol
>> inside
>> >> > code he
>> >> > > > > > merged.
>> >> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
>> >> > > > > unacceptable.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
>> >> some
>> >> > > > > > objections.
>> >> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
>> >> instead.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> >> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> >> describe
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > > reasons for
>> >> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> >> cases
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > > > needed.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix
>> >> (investigate
>> >> > why
>> >> > > > > every
>> >> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
>> >> Friday
>> >> > > > > > evening,
>> >> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
>> >> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> >> > somefireone@gmail.com
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> >> describe
>> >> > > > reasons
>> >> > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> >> cases if
>> >> > > > > needed.
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov
>> dpavlov@apache.org:
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
>> >> investigation
>> >> > > > will
>> >> > > > > > >> always
>> >> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
>> >> > agree to
>> >> > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
>> >> > existing of
>> >> > > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > >>> test,
>> >> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the
>> test,
>> >> > and how
>> >> > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > >>> checked?
>> >> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> >> research to
>> >> > > > > > >> demonstrate
>> >> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <
>> av@apache.org
>> >> >:
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> >> > create
>> >> > > > > ticket
>> >> > > > > > >>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> >> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of
>> all
>> >> > tests
>> >> > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> >> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is
>> not
>> >> the
>> >> > > > final
>> >> > > > > > >>> step.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> >> > vololo100@gmail.com
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base
>> class
>> >> > approach
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> >> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea,
>> >> because
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > > looks
>> >> > > > > > >>>> like
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> >> > create
>> >> > > > > > >> ticket
>> >> > > > > > >>>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov
>> av@apache.org
>> >> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a
>> final
>> >> > step.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> >> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that
>> >> it is
>> >> > > > good
>> >> > > > > > >>>> that
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with
>> "expensive"
>> >> > ~100
>> >> > > > > > >>> tests
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like
>> an
>> >> > opinion
>> >> > > > > > >>> from
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how
>> to
>> >> > improve
>> >> > > > > > >> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >> > dpavlov@apache.org:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq -
>> has
>> >> > > > > > >>> absolutely
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same
>> things.
>> >> It
>> >> > is
>> >> > > > > > >> a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> >> Ignite
>> >> > > > > > >>> (and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly
>> different
>> >> > > > > > >>> approach
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks
>> like a
>> >> > > > > > >> cheap
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth
>> it?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted
>> code
>> >> in
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with
>> it.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier
>> to
>> >> find
>> >> > > > > > >> all
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> places
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван
>> пишет:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring
>> I
>> >> have
>> >> > > > > > >>> not
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> got a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain
>> points:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100
>> tests
>> >> > > > > > >>> require
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> noop
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several
>> >> problems
>> >> > > > > > >> are
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> covered
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly
>> different
>> >> > > > > > >>> approach
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks
>> like a
>> >> > > > > > >> cheap
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed.
>> Straight
>> >> > > > > > >> away
>> >> > > > > > >>> I
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> can
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop
>> handler
>> >> > could
>> >> > > > > > >>> be
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which
>> can
>> >> > > > > > >>> happen
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> >> Ignite
>> >> > > > > > >>> (and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert
>> the
>> >> > patch
>> >> > > > > > >>> and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> then
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone)
>> what
>> >> can
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
>> >> because
>> >> > I
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> believe
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> >> test
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
>> >> failures
>> >> > > > > > >> in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
>> >> minor
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> details
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> >> > > > > > >> commit.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this
>> may
>> >> > > > > > >> be
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
>> >> approach?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this
>> may
>> >> > > > > > >> be
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>> >> > > > > > >>> something
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> >> > > > > > >> Apache
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode -
>> until
>> >> > > > > > >> we
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> stop
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as
>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>> (only)
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> >> > > > > > >> test
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details
>> if
>> >> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> was
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of
>> tests we
>> >> > > > > > >>> are
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>> >> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion
>> about
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability
>> >> from
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve
>> odd
>> >> > > > > > >>> mutes
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in
>> the
>> >> TC
>> >> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Is
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the
>> contribution?
>> >> > > > > > >> I
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to
>> help/contribute a
>> >> > > > > > >>>> better
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if
>> people
>> >> in
>> >> > > > > > >>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with
>> >> some
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than
>> others.
>> >> > > > > > >>> More
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> you
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at
>> all -
>> >> > > > > > >> I
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> don't
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> >> > > > > > >> provide
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> facts
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the
>> test
>> >> > > > > > >>>> should
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> be
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide
>> just
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> negative
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> >> > > > > > >> enabled
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> without
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be
>> >> afraid
>> >> > > > > > >>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place
>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>> have
>> >> > > > > > >>>> an
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community
>> first
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code
>> instead
>> >> > > > > > >>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker
>> base
>> >> > > > > > >>>> class
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>> >> > > > > > >>> current
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> >> > > > > > >> found
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request
>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is
>> not
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> related
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>> >> > > > > > >>> someone
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> will
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a
>> silly
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> solution
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> >> > > > > > >> nowhere.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make
>> things
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> better he
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named
>> do-ocracy,
>> >> > > > > > >>>> those
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> who
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of
>> how
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> >> > > > > > >> problem
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> >> > > > > > >> found
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> after
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>> >> > > > > > >>> stop-node
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> >> > > > > > >> care.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>> >> > > > > > >>> 100/6
>> >> > > > > > >>>> =
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> 18
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> >> > > > > > >> better
>> >> > > > > > >>>> if
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize
>> and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want
>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> improve
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey
>> Kuznetsov
>> >> > > > > > >> <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>> >> > > > > > >>> when
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> >> > > > > > >> caused
>> >> > > > > > >>> by
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>> >> > > > > > >>> more
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>> >> > > > > > >>> revealed
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> >> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> >> > > > > > >> anti
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> >> > > > > > >> fix
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> >> > > > > > >> further
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>> >> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> time
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>> >> > > > > > >>>> keeping
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> >> > > > > > >> case
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> >> > > > > > >> code.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>> >> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
>> >> > > > > > >>>> <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>> >> > > > > > >>>> perfect
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>> >> > > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>> >> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>> >> > > > > > >>>> before
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> >> > > > > > >> TC
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> report
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>> >> > > > > > >>>> this
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> (get
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>> >> > > > > > >>> option.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>> >> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> >> > > > > > >> will
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> you try
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> >> > > > > > >> to
>> >> > > > > > >>> do
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>> >> > > > > > >>> contributed
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> >> > > > > > >> all?
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>> >> > > > > > >>> me
>> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

It doesn't make sense to run that test now because the root cause of it's
failure had been fixed.

You should verify that getting an unhandled exception in any system thread
leads to the failure of currently running test.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662
>
> 10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" <dp...@apache.org>
> написал:
>
> Reverted.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened
>
> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
>
> > Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.
> >
> > Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both
> > functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is
> > the only option and it should be reverted.
> >
> > Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting
> > just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
> > should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come
> and
> > give feedback.
> >
> > So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it
> later.
> >
> > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
> >> Why it still not reverted?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> >> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Ilya,
> >> > >
> >> > > thank you for noticing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> >> > >
> >> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> >> > >
> >> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework
> >> fix
> >> > >
> >> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> >> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> >> > > correctly failing test.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sincerely,
> >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a
> >> test
> >> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following
> text
> >> > into
> >> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [2018-12-07
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> >> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> >> > configured
> >> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [],
> failureCtx=FailureContext
> >> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable
> to
> >> > find
> >> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> >> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by
> UUID
> >> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> >> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> >> > > >     at
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> >> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> >> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic
> weekend,
> >> > and
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive
> >> and
> >> > > > > >> constructive manner.
> >> > > > > Agree
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> nizhikov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Anton.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> >> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
> >> > tests.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
> >> research to
> >> > > > > > > demonstrate
> >> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here
> >> because
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> >> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> >> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no
> massive
> >> > > > > > duplication
> >> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> >> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
> >> > code he
> >> > > > > > merged.
> >> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> >> > > > > unacceptable.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
> >> some
> >> > > > > > objections.
> >> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
> >> instead.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
> >> describe
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > reasons for
> >> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
> >> cases
> >> > if
> >> > > > > > needed.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix
> >> (investigate
> >> > why
> >> > > > > every
> >> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
> >> Friday
> >> > > > > > evening,
> >> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> >> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> >> > somefireone@gmail.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
> >> describe
> >> > > > reasons
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
> >> cases if
> >> > > > > needed.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov
> dpavlov@apache.org:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
> >> investigation
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> always
> >> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
> >> > agree to
> >> > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
> >> > existing of
> >> > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >>> test,
> >> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the
> test,
> >> > and how
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >>> checked?
> >> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
> >> research to
> >> > > > > > >> demonstrate
> >> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> >> >:
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> >> > create
> >> > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > >>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of
> all
> >> > tests
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >>> no-op
> >> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is
> not
> >> the
> >> > > > final
> >> > > > > > >>> step.
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
> >> > vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
> >> > approach
> >> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> >> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> >> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea,
> >> because
> >> > it
> >> > > > > looks
> >> > > > > > >>>> like
> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> >> > create
> >> > > > > > >> ticket
> >> > > > > > >>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov
> av@apache.org
> >> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a
> final
> >> > step.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> >> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that
> >> it is
> >> > > > good
> >> > > > > > >>>> that
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with
> "expensive"
> >> > ~100
> >> > > > > > >>> tests
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like
> an
> >> > opinion
> >> > > > > > >>> from
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
> >> > improve
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > dpavlov@apache.org:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> >> > > > > > >>> absolutely
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same
> things.
> >> It
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > >> a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> >> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >>> (and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >> > > > > > >>> approach
> >> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks
> like a
> >> > > > > > >> cheap
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth
> it?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code
> >> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with
> it.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to
> >> find
> >> > > > > > >> all
> >> > > > > > >>>>> places
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван
> пишет:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
> >> have
> >> > > > > > >>> not
> >> > > > > > >>>>> got a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain
> points:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100
> tests
> >> > > > > > >>> require
> >> > > > > > >>>>> noop
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several
> >> problems
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >>>>> covered
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >> > > > > > >>> approach
> >> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks
> like a
> >> > > > > > >> cheap
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed.
> Straight
> >> > > > > > >> away
> >> > > > > > >>> I
> >> > > > > > >>>>> can
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> >> > could
> >> > > > > > >>> be
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which
> can
> >> > > > > > >>> happen
> >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> >> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >>> (and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> >> > patch
> >> > > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>> then
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what
> >> can
> >> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
> >> because
> >> > I
> >> > > > > > >>>>> believe
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> >> test
> >> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
> >> failures
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
> >> minor
> >> > > > > > >>>>> details
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> >> > > > > > >> commit.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this
> may
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
> >> approach?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this
> may
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> >> > > > > > >>> something
> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> >> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> >> > > > > > >> Apache
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode -
> until
> >> > > > > > >> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>> stop
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> >> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> >> > > > > > >>> (only)
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> >> > > > > > >> test
> >> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> >> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details
> if
> >> > > > > > >>> no-op
> >> > > > > > >>>>> was
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests
> we
> >> > > > > > >>> are
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> >> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> >> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion
> about
> >> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability
> >> from
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve
> odd
> >> > > > > > >>> mutes
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the
> >> TC
> >> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Is
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the
> contribution?
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute
> a
> >> > > > > > >>>> better
> >> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people
> >> in
> >> > > > > > >>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with
> >> some
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than
> others.
> >> > > > > > >>> More
> >> > > > > > >>>>> you
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at
> all -
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >>>>> don't
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> >> > > > > > >> provide
> >> > > > > > >>>>> facts
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the
> test
> >> > > > > > >>>> should
> >> > > > > > >>>>> be
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide
> just
> >> > > > > > >>>>> negative
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> >> > > > > > >> enabled
> >> > > > > > >>>>> without
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be
> >> afraid
> >> > > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place
> to
> >> > > > > > >>> have
> >> > > > > > >>>> an
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> >> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> >> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code
> instead
> >> > > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker
> base
> >> > > > > > >>>> class
> >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> >> > > > > > >>> current
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> >> > > > > > >> found
> >> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request
> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> >> > > > > > >>>>> related
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> >> > > > > > >>> someone
> >> > > > > > >>>>> will
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> >> > > > > > >>>>> solution
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> >> > > > > > >> nowhere.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> >> > > > > > >>>>> better he
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> >> > > > > > >>>> those
> >> > > > > > >>>>> who
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of
> how
> >> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> >> > > > > > >> problem
> >> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> >> > > > > > >> found
> >> > > > > > >>>>> after
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> >> > > > > > >>> stop-node
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> >> > > > > > >> care.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> >> > > > > > >>> 100/6
> >> > > > > > >>>> =
> >> > > > > > >>>>> 18
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> >> > > > > > >> better
> >> > > > > > >>>> if
> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize
> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> >> > > > > > >>>>> improve
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> >> > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> >> > > > > > >>> when
> >> > > > > > >>>>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> >> > > > > > >> caused
> >> > > > > > >>> by
> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> >> > > > > > >>> more
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> >> > > > > > >>> revealed
> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> >> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> >> > > > > > >> anti
> >> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> >> > > > > > >> fix
> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> >> > > > > > >> further
> >> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> >> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
> >> > > > > > >>>>> time
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> >> > > > > > >>>> keeping
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> >> > > > > > >> case
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> >> > > > > > >> code.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> >> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > >>>> <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> >> > > > > > >>>> perfect
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> >> > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> >> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> >> > > > > > >>>> before
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> >> > > > > > >> TC
> >> > > > > > >>>>> report
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> >> > > > > > >>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>> (get
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> >> > > > > > >>> option.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> >> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> >> > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > >>>>> you try
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >>> do
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> >> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> >> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> >> > > > > > >>> contributed
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> >> > > > > > >> all?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> >> > > > > > >>> me
> >> > > > > > >>>>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Ilya

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Ilya, can you check your test on current implementation [1]?

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5662

10 дек. 2018 г. 17:10 пользователь "Dmitriy Pavlov" <dp...@apache.org>
написал:

Reverted.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened

пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:


> Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.
>
> Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both
> functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is
> the only option and it should be reverted.
>
> Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting
> just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
> should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and
> give feedback.
>
> So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later.
>
> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
>> Dmitriy,
>>
>> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
>> Why it still not reverted?
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
>> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Ilya,
>> > >
>> > > thank you for noticing.
>> > >
>> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
>> > >
>> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
>> > >
>> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework
>> fix
>> > >
>> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
>> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
>> > > correctly failing test.
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a
>> test
>> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
>> > into
>> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
>> > > >
>> > > > [2018-12-07
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
>> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
>> > configured
>> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [],
failureCtx=FailureContext
>> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable
to
>> > find
>> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
>> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by
UUID
>> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> >
>>
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
>> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic
weekend,
>> > and
>> > > > then
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive
>> and
>> > > > > >> constructive manner.
>> > > > > Agree
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Anton.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
>> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
>> > tests.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> research to
>> > > > > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here
>> because
>> > of
>> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
>> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
>> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no
massive
>> > > > > > duplication
>> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
>> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
>> > code he
>> > > > > > merged.
>> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
>> > > > > unacceptable.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
>> some
>> > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
>> instead.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> describe
>> > the
>> > > > > > > reasons for
>> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> cases
>> > if
>> > > > > > needed.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix
>> (investigate
>> > why
>> > > > > every
>> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
>> Friday
>> > > > > > evening,
>> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
>> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> describe
>> > > > reasons
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> cases if
>> > > > > needed.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
>> investigation
>> > > > will
>> > > > > > >> always
>> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
>> > agree to
>> > > > > add
>> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
>> > existing of
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >>> test,
>> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
>> > and how
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >>> checked?
>> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> research to
>> > > > > > >> demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> > create
>> > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
>> > tests
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not
>> the
>> > > > final
>> > > > > > >>> step.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> > vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
>> > approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea,
>> because
>> > it
>> > > > > looks
>> > > > > > >>>> like
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> > create
>> > > > > > >> ticket
>> > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org
>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
>> > step.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that
>> it is
>> > > > good
>> > > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with
"expensive"
>> > ~100
>> > > > > > >>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
>> > opinion
>> > > > > > >>> from
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
>> > improve
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > dpavlov@apache.org:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
>> > > > > > >>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things.
>> It
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>> > > > > > >>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like
a
>> > > > > > >> cheap
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code
>> in
>> > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to
>> find
>> > > > > > >> all
>> > > > > > >>>>> places
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван
пишет:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
>> have
>> > > > > > >>> not
>> > > > > > >>>>> got a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
>> > > > > > >>> require
>> > > > > > >>>>> noop
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several
>> problems
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >>>>> covered
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>> > > > > > >>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like
a
>> > > > > > >> cheap
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed.
Straight
>> > > > > > >> away
>> > > > > > >>> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> can
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
>> > could
>> > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which
can
>> > > > > > >>> happen
>> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
>> > patch
>> > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>> then
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what
>> can
>> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
>> because
>> > I
>> > > > > > >>>>> believe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> test
>> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
>> failures
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
>> minor
>> > > > > > >>>>> details
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> > > > > > >> commit.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
>> approach?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>> > > > > > >>> something
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> > > > > > >> Apache
>> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode -
until
>> > > > > > >> we
>> > > > > > >>>>> stop
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
>> > > > > > >>> (only)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> > > > > > >> test
>> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
>> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>> was
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests
we
>> > > > > > >>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability
>> from
>> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>> > > > > > >>> mutes
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the
>> TC
>> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
>> > > > > > >>>>> Is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the
contribution?
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>> > > > > > >>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people
>> in
>> > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with
>> some
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
>> > > > > > >>> More
>> > > > > > >>>>> you
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all
-
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> don't
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> > > > > > >> provide
>> > > > > > >>>>> facts
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
>> > > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide
just
>> > > > > > >>>>> negative
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> > > > > > >> enabled
>> > > > > > >>>>> without
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be
>> afraid
>> > > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>> > > > > > >>> have
>> > > > > > >>>> an
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code
instead
>> > > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
>> > > > > > >>>> class
>> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>> > > > > > >>> current
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>> > > > > > >>>>> related
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>> > > > > > >>> someone
>> > > > > > >>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>> > > > > > >>>>> solution
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> > > > > > >> nowhere.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
>> > > > > > >>>>> better he
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>> > > > > > >>>> those
>> > > > > > >>>>> who
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> > > > > > >> problem
>> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >>>>> after
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>> > > > > > >>> stop-node
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> > > > > > >> care.
>> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>> > > > > > >>> 100/6
>> > > > > > >>>> =
>> > > > > > >>>>> 18
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> > > > > > >> better
>> > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
>> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
>> > > > > > >>>>> improve
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>> > > > > > >>> when
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> > > > > > >> caused
>> > > > > > >>> by
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>> > > > > > >>> more
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>> > > > > > >>> revealed
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> > > > > > >> anti
>> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> > > > > > >> fix
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> > > > > > >> further
>> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
>> > > > > > >>>>> time
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>> > > > > > >>>> keeping
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> > > > > > >> case
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> > > > > > >> code.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
>> > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>> > > > > > >>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>> > > > > > >>>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> > > > > > >> TC
>> > > > > > >>>>> report
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>> > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>> (get
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>> > > > > > >>> option.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >>>>> you try
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >>> do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>> > > > > > >>> contributed
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> > > > > > >> all?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>> > > > > > >>> me
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Reverted.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 reopened

пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:

> Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.
>
> Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both
> functional and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is
> the only option and it should be reverted.
>
> Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting
> just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
> should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and
> give feedback.
>
> So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later.
>
> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
>> Dmitriy,
>>
>> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
>> Why it still not reverted?
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
>> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Ilya,
>> > >
>> > > thank you for noticing.
>> > >
>> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
>> > >
>> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
>> > >
>> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework
>> fix
>> > >
>> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
>> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
>> > > correctly failing test.
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a
>> test
>> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
>> > into
>> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
>> > > >
>> > > > [2018-12-07
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
>> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
>> > configured
>> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
>> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
>> > find
>> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
>> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
>> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
>> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
>> > > >     at
>> > > >
>> >
>> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
>> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend,
>> > and
>> > > > then
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive
>> and
>> > > > > >> constructive manner.
>> > > > > Agree
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Anton.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
>> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
>> > tests.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> research to
>> > > > > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here
>> because
>> > of
>> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
>> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
>> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
>> > > > > > duplication
>> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
>> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
>> > code he
>> > > > > > merged.
>> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
>> > > > > unacceptable.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
>> some
>> > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
>> instead.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> describe
>> > the
>> > > > > > > reasons for
>> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> cases
>> > if
>> > > > > > needed.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix
>> (investigate
>> > why
>> > > > > every
>> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
>> Friday
>> > > > > > evening,
>> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
>> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
>> describe
>> > > > reasons
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this
>> cases if
>> > > > > needed.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
>> investigation
>> > > > will
>> > > > > > >> always
>> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
>> > agree to
>> > > > > add
>> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
>> > existing of
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >>> test,
>> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
>> > and how
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >>> checked?
>> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests
>> research to
>> > > > > > >> demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>> the idea.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> > create
>> > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
>> > tests
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not
>> the
>> > > > final
>> > > > > > >>> step.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> > vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
>> > approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea,
>> because
>> > it
>> > > > > looks
>> > > > > > >>>> like
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
>> > create
>> > > > > > >> ticket
>> > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org
>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
>> > step.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that
>> it is
>> > > > good
>> > > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive"
>> > ~100
>> > > > > > >>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
>> > opinion
>> > > > > > >>> from
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
>> > improve
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > dpavlov@apache.org:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
>> > > > > > >>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things.
>> It
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>> > > > > > >>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> > > > > > >> cheap
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code
>> in
>> > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to
>> find
>> > > > > > >> all
>> > > > > > >>>>> places
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
>> have
>> > > > > > >>> not
>> > > > > > >>>>> got a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
>> > > > > > >>> require
>> > > > > > >>>>> noop
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several
>> problems
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >>>>> covered
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>> > > > > > >>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> how to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> > > > > > >> cheap
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
>> > > > > > >> away
>> > > > > > >>> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> can
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
>> > could
>> > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
>> > > > > > >>> happen
>> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
>> > patch
>> > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>> then
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what
>> can
>> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
>> because
>> > I
>> > > > > > >>>>> believe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> test
>> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
>> failures
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
>> minor
>> > > > > > >>>>> details
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> > > > > > >> commit.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
>> approach?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >>>>> better.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>> > > > > > >>> something
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> > > > > > >> Apache
>> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
>> > > > > > >> we
>> > > > > > >>>>> stop
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
>> > > > > > >>> (only)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> > > > > > >> test
>> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
>> > > > > > >>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>> was
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
>> > > > > > >>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability
>> from
>> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>> > > > > > >>> mutes
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the
>> TC
>> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
>> > > > > > >>>>> Is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>> > > > > > >>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people
>> in
>> > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with
>> some
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
>> > > > > > >>> More
>> > > > > > >>>>> you
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >>>>> don't
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> > > > > > >> provide
>> > > > > > >>>>> facts
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
>> > > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>> > > > > > >>>>> negative
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> > > > > > >> enabled
>> > > > > > >>>>> without
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be
>> afraid
>> > > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>> > > > > > >>> have
>> > > > > > >>>> an
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
>> > > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
>> > > > > > >>>> class
>> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>> > > > > > >>> current
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>> > > > > > >>>>> related
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>> > > > > > >>> someone
>> > > > > > >>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>> > > > > > >>>>> solution
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> > > > > > >> nowhere.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
>> > > > > > >>>>> better he
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>> > > > > > >>>> those
>> > > > > > >>>>> who
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> > > > > > >> problem
>> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >>>>> after
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>> > > > > > >>> stop-node
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> > > > > > >> care.
>> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>> > > > > > >>> 100/6
>> > > > > > >>>> =
>> > > > > > >>>>> 18
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> > > > > > >> better
>> > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
>> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
>> > > > > > >>>>> improve
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>> > > > > > >>> when
>> > > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> > > > > > >> caused
>> > > > > > >>> by
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>> > > > > > >>> more
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>> > > > > > >>> revealed
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> > > > > > >> anti
>> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> > > > > > >> fix
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> > > > > > >> further
>> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
>> > > > > > >>>>> time
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>> > > > > > >>>> keeping
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> > > > > > >> case
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> > > > > > >> code.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
>> > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>> > > > > > >>>> perfect
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>> > > > > > >>>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> > > > > > >> TC
>> > > > > > >>>>> report
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>> > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>> (get
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>> > > > > > >>> option.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >>>>> you try
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >>> do
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>> > > > > > >>> contributed
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> > > > > > >> all?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>> > > > > > >>> me
>> > > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
>> > > > > > >>>>> choice.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
>> > > > > > >> handlers
>> > > > > > >>>>> are not
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
>> > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > >>>>> change,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
>> > > > > > >> approach
>> > > > > > >>>>> without
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
>> > > > > > >>>> fix,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
>> > > > > > >>> first.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
>> > > > > > >>> why
>> > > > > > >>>>> tests
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
>> > > > > > >>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
>> > > > > > >> rollback.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>> > > > > > >>>> Eduard
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>> > > > > > >>> problem
>> > > > > > >>>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
>> > > > > > >> PM
>> > > > > > >>>>> Павлухин
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
>> > > > > > >> And I
>> > > > > > >>>>> would
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.

Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both functional
and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is the only
option and it should be reverted.

Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting
just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and
give feedback.

So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later.

пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
> Why it still not reverted?
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Hi Ilya,
> > >
> > > thank you for noticing.
> > >
> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> > >
> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> > >
> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
> > >
> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> > > correctly failing test.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > >
> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a
> test
> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
> > into
> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> > > >
> > > > [2018-12-07
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> > configured
> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
> > find
> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend,
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive
> and
> > > > > >> constructive manner.
> > > > > Agree
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
> > tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because
> > of
> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > > > duplication
> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
> > code he
> > > > > > merged.
> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > > > unacceptable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
> some
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
> instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
> describe
> > the
> > > > > > > reasons for
> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> > if
> > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate
> > why
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
> Friday
> > > > > > evening,
> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > > > reasons
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> if
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
> investigation
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> always
> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
> > agree to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
> > existing of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >>> test,
> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
> > and how
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >>> checked?
> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research
> to
> > > > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> > create
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
> > tests
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not
> the
> > > > final
> > > > > > >>> step.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
> > approach
> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because
> > it
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > >>>> like
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> > create
> > > > > > >> ticket
> > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
> > step.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it
> is
> > > > good
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive"
> > ~100
> > > > > > >>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> > opinion
> > > > > > >>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
> > improve
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things.
> It
> > is
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to
> find
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >>>>> places
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
> have
> > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > > > >>> require
> > > > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > > > >> away
> > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> > could
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > > > >>> happen
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> > patch
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what
> can
> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
> because
> > I
> > > > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
> minor
> > > > > > >>>>> details
> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > > > >>> something
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > > > >> Apache
> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > > > >>> (only)
> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > > > >> test
> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > > > >>> mutes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > > > >>> More
> > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > > > >> provide
> > > > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > > > >> enabled
> > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > > > >>> have
> > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > > > >>>> class
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > > > >>>>> related
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > > > >>> someone
> > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > > > >>>> those
> > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > > > >> care.
> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > > > >>>> =
> > > > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > > > >> better
> > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > > > >>> when
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > > > >> caused
> > > > > > >>> by
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > > > >>> more
> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > > > >>> revealed
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > > > >> anti
> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > > > >> fix
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > > > >> further
> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > > > >>>>> time
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > > > >> code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > > > >> TC
> > > > > > >>>>> report
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > > > >>> option.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > > > >>> contributed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > > > >> all?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > > > >> handlers
> > > > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > > > >>> first.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > > > >>> why
> > > > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > > > >>> before
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > > > >> rollback.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > > >>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > > > >> PM
> > > > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > > > >> And I
> > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
Why it still not reverted?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > thank you for noticing.
> >
> > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> >
> >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> >
> > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
> >
> > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> > correctly failing test.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> >
> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
> into
> > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> > >
> > > [2018-12-07
> > >
> > >
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> configured
> > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
> find
> > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> > >     at
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend,
> and
> > > then
> > > > on
> > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > > > >> constructive manner.
> > > > Agree
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton.
> > > > >
> > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
> tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because
> of
> > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > > duplication
> > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
> code he
> > > > > merged.
> > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > > unacceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > > > objections.
> > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> the
> > > > > > reasons for
> > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> if
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate
> why
> > > > every
> > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > > > evening,
> > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > > reasons
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > > needed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> > > will
> > > > > >> always
> > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
> agree to
> > > > add
> > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
> existing of
> > > > > this
> > > > > >>> test,
> > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
> and how
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>> checked?
> > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> create
> > > > ticket
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
> tests
> > > > with
> > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> > > final
> > > > > >>> step.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
> approach
> > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because
> it
> > > > looks
> > > > > >>>> like
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> create
> > > > > >> ticket
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
> step.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> > > good
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive"
> ~100
> > > > > >>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> opinion
> > > > > >>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
> improve
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It
> is
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >>>>> places
> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > > > >>> not
> > > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > > >>> require
> > > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > > >> away
> > > > > >>> I
> > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> could
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > > >>> happen
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> patch
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because
> I
> > > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > > >>>>> details
> > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > > >>> something
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > > >> Apache
> > > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > > >>> (only)
> > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > > >> test
> > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > > >>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > > >>> mutes
> > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > > >>> More
> > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > > >> provide
> > > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > > >> enabled
> > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > > >>> have
> > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > > >>>> class
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > > >>> current
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > > >>>>> related
> > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > > >>> someone
> > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > > >>>> those
> > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > > >> problem
> > > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > > >> care.
> > > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > > >>>> =
> > > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > > >> better
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > > >>> when
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > > >> caused
> > > > > >>> by
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > > >>> more
> > > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > > >>> revealed
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > > >> anti
> > > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > > >> fix
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > > >> further
> > > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > > >>>>> time
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > > >> case
> > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > > >> code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > > >> TC
> > > > > >>>>> report
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > > >>> option.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > > >>> contributed
> > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > > >> all?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > > >>> me
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > > >> handlers
> > > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > > >> approach
> > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > > >>> first.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > > >>> why
> > > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > > >>> before
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > > >> rollback.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > >>> problem
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > > >> PM
> > > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > > >> And I
> > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > > > >>> "use
> > > > > >>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > > > >>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > > > >>> failures.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> revert
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > > > >> A
> > > > > >>>> lot
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > > > >> everything
> > > > > >>>>> I've
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > > > >>> better,
> > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > > > >> contribute
> > > > > >>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > > > >> revert
> > > > > >>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > >> 14:53,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > > > >>> summarize
> > > > > >>>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > > > >>> added a
> > > > > >>>>> very
> > > > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > > > >>>>> think it
> > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > > > >>> overweight
> > > > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > >>> 14:03,
> > > > > >>>>> Anton
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > > > >>> idea
> > > > > >>>>> to ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>> author
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > > > >> community
> > > > > >>>>> member,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > > > >> able
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> merge
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> thank you for noticing.
>
> Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
>
>         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
>
> So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
>
> - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> correctly failing test.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
>
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
> > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> >
> > [2018-12-07
> >
> > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
> > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
> > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> >     at
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and
> > then
> > > on
> > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > > >> constructive manner.
> > > Agree
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton.
> > > >
> > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > >
> > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > >
> > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > >
> > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > >
> > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > duplication
> > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > > > merged.
> > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > unacceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > > objections.
> > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > > > reasons for
> > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> > > every
> > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > > evening,
> > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > reasons
> > > > for
> > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > needed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> > will
> > > > >> always
> > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> > > add
> > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > > > this
> > > > >>> test,
> > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >>> checked?
> > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > ticket
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> > > with
> > > > >>> no-op
> > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> > final
> > > > >>> step.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> > > looks
> > > > >>>> like
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > > >> ticket
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> > good
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > > >>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > > > >>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > >>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > >>> approach
> > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > >> cheap
> > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > > >> all
> > > > >>>>> places
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > > >>> not
> > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > >>> require
> > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > >> are
> > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > >>> approach
> > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > >> cheap
> > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > >> away
> > > > >>> I
> > > > >>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > >>> happen
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > >>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > >>>>> details
> > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > >> commit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > >>> something
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > >> Apache
> > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > >> we
> > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > >>> (only)
> > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > >> test
> > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > >>> no-op
> > > > >>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > >>> mutes
> > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > >>>> better
> > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > >>> More
> > > > >>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > >> provide
> > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > >> enabled
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > >>> have
> > > > >>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > >>>> class
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > >>> current
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > >> found
> > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > >>>>> related
> > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > >>> someone
> > > > >>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > >>>> those
> > > > >>>>> who
> > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > >> problem
> > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > >> found
> > > > >>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > >> care.
> > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > >>>> =
> > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > >> better
> > > > >>>> if
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > >> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > >>> when
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > >> caused
> > > > >>> by
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > >>> more
> > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > >>> revealed
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > >> anti
> > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > >> fix
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > >> further
> > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > >>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > >> case
> > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > >> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > >>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > >>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > >> TC
> > > > >>>>> report
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > >>> option.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > >> will
> > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>> do
> > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > >>> contributed
> > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > >> all?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > >>> me
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > >> handlers
> > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > >> approach
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > >>> first.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > >>> why
> > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > >>> before
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > >> rollback.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > >>> problem
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > >> PM
> > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > >> And I
> > > > >>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > > >>> "use
> > > > >>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > > >>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > > >>> failures.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> revert
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > > >> A
> > > > >>>> lot
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > > >> everything
> > > > >>>>> I've
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > > >>> better,
> > > > >>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > > >> contribute
> > > > >>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > > >> revert
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > >> 14:53,
> > > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > > >>> summarize
> > > > >>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > > >>> added a
> > > > >>>>> very
> > > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > > >>>>> think it
> > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > > >>> overweight
> > > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > >>> 14:03,
> > > > >>>>> Anton
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > > >>> idea
> > > > >>>>> to ask
> > > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > > >> not
> > > > >>> an
> > > > >>>>>>> author
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > > >> community
> > > > >>>>> member,
> > > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > > >> able
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> merge
> > > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > > >>>>>>>>>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Hi Ilya,

thank you for noticing.

Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,

        throw new AssertionFailedError(message);

So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix

- as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
- and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
correctly failing test.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov


пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:

> Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
> log, but the test still passes "successfully":
>
> [2018-12-07
>
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
> handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
> consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
>     at
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
>     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and
> then
> > on
> > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > >> constructive manner.
> > Agree
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton.
> > >
> > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > >
> > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > >
> > > So, this fix make things better.
> > >
> > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > >
> > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> > >
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > >
> > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > demonstrate
> > > >>> the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > duplication
> > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > > merged.
> > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > objections.
> > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > > reasons for
> > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> > every
> > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > evening,
> > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> reasons
> > > for
> > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > >>
> > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> will
> > > >> always
> > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> > add
> > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > > this
> > > >>> test,
> > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> > it
> > > is
> > > >>> checked?
> > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > >> demonstrate
> > > >>> the idea.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > ticket
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> > with
> > > >>> no-op
> > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> final
> > > >>> step.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> > looks
> > > >>>> like
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > >> ticket
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> good
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > >>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > > >>> from
> > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > >>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > >>> (and
> > > >>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > >>> approach
> > > >>>>> how to
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > >> cheap
> > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > >> all
> > > >>>>> places
> > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > >>> not
> > > >>>>> got a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > >>> require
> > > >>>>> noop
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > >> are
> > > >>>>> covered
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > >>> approach
> > > >>>>> how to
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > >> cheap
> > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > >> away
> > > >>> I
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > >>> happen
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > >>> (and
> > > >>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > >>>>> believe
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > >>>>> failure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > >> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > >>>>> details
> > > >>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > >> commit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> better.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> better.
> > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > >>> something
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > >> Apache
> > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > >> we
> > > >>>>> stop
> > > >>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > >>> (only)
> > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > >> test
> > > >>>>> failure.
> > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > >>> no-op
> > > >>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > >>> are
> > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > >>>> disagreements
> > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > >>>>> reverting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > >>> mutes
> > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > >>>> Bot.
> > > >>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>> he
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> guess,
> > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > >>>> better
> > > >>>>> fix.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > >>> More
> > > >>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > >> provide
> > > >>>>> facts
> > > >>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > >>>>> negative
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > >> enabled
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > >>>> class
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > >>> current
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > >> found
> > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > >>>>> related
> > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > >>> someone
> > > >>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > >>>>> solution
> > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > >> nowhere.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > >>>>> better he
> > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > >>>> those
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > >> problem
> > > >>>>> (we had
> > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > >> found
> > > >>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > >>> stop-node
> > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > >> care.
> > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > >>> 100/6
> > > >>>> =
> > > >>>>> 18
> > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > >> better
> > > >>>> if
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> go
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > >>>>> enforces
> > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > >>>>> improve
> > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > >> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > >>> when
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > >> caused
> > > >>> by
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > >>> more
> > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > >>> revealed
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > >> Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > >> anti
> > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > >> fix
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > >> further
> > > >>>>> tickets
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > >>>> Maxim
> > > >>>>> time
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > >>>> keeping
> > > >>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > >> case
> > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > >> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > >>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > >>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > >>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > >> TC
> > > >>>>> report
> > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>> (get
> > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > >>> option.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > >> will
> > > >>>>> you try
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > >> to
> > > >>> do
> > > >>>>>>> things
> > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > >>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > >>> contributed
> > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > >>>>> problem in
> > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > >> all?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > >>> me
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > >>>>> choice.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > >> handlers
> > > >>>>> are not
> > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > >> this
> > > >>>>> change,
> > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > >> approach
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > >>>> fix,
> > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > >>> first.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > >>> why
> > > >>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > >>> before
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > >> rollback.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > >>>> Eduard
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > >>> problem
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > >> PM
> > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > >> And I
> > > >>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > >>> "use
> > > >>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > >>>> these
> > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > >>> failures.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> revert
> > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > >> A
> > > >>>> lot
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > >> everything
> > > >>>>> I've
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > >>> better,
> > > >>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > >> contribute
> > > >>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > >> revert
> > > >>>> by
> > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > >> 14:53,
> > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > >>> summarize
> > > >>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > >>> added a
> > > >>>>> very
> > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > >>>>> think it
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > >>> overweight
> > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > >>> 14:03,
> > > >>>>> Anton
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > >>> idea
> > > >>>>> to ask
> > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > >> not
> > > >>> an
> > > >>>>>>> author
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > >> community
> > > >>>>> member,
> > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > >> able
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> merge
> > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > >>>>>>>>>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>]

Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
log, but the test still passes "successfully":

[2018-12-07
18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
[type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
[nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)


On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:

> >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then
> on
> >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> >> constructive manner.
> Agree
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton.
> >
> > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> >
> > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> >
> > So, this fix make things better.
> >
> > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> >
> > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> >
> > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> >
> > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > demonstrate
> > >>> the idea.
> > >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > duplication
> > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > merged.
> > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > objections.
> > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > reasons for
> > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > needed.
> > >
> > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> every
> > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > evening,
> > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> > for
> > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> needed.
> > >>
> > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > >>
> > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> > >> always
> > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > >>>
> > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> add
> > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > this
> > >>> test,
> > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> it
> > is
> > >>> checked?
> > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > >> demonstrate
> > >>> the idea.
> > >>>
> > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> with
> > >>> no-op
> > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > >>> step.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> looks
> > >>>> like
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > >> ticket
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > >>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > >>> from
> > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > >>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>> nothing
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>> practical
> > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > >>> (and
> > >>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>> a>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > >>> approach
> > >>>>> how to
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > >> cheap
> > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > >> all
> > >>>>> places
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > >>> not
> > >>>>> got a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > >>> require
> > >>>>> noop
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > >> are
> > >>>>> covered
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > >>> approach
> > >>>>> how to
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > >> cheap
> > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > >> away
> > >>> I
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > >>> be
> > >>>>>>> costly.
> > >>>>>>>> So,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > >>> happen
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > >>> (and
> > >>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>> do it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > >>>>> guarantee
> > >>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > >>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > >>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > >> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > >>>>> details
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > >> commit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > >> be
> > >>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > >> be
> > >>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > >>> something
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > >>>>> implementation as
> > >>>>>>>> well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > >> Apache
> > >>>>> Way, -
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > >> we
> > >>>>> stop
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > >>> (only)
> > >>>>>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > >> test
> > >>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>> By
> > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > >>> no-op
> > >>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > >>> are
> > >>>>>>> allowed
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > >>>> disagreements
> > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > >>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > >>>>> reverting
> > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > >>>>>>> R.?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > >>> mutes
> > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > >>>> Bot.
> > >>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>> he
> > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > >> I
> > >>>>> guess,
> > >>>>>>> no,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>>> thread
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > >>> More
> > >>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > >> I
> > >>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>> care too
> > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > >> provide
> > >>>>> facts
> > >>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > >>>>> negative
> > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > >> enabled
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>> proper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>> sharing
> > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > >>> have
> > >>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > >>>>> contributors? I
> > >>>>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > >>>>> principle'.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>> thinking
> > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > >>>> class
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > >>> current
> > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > >> found
> > >>>>> with IDE
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > >>>>>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > >>>>> related
> > >>>>>>>> much to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > >>> someone
> > >>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > >>>>> solution
> > >>>>>>>> and say
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > >> nowhere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > >>>>> better he
> > >>>>>>>> or she
> > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > >>>> those
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>> do can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > >> problem
> > >>>>> (we had
> > >>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > >> found
> > >>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > >>> stop-node
> > >>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > >> care.
> > >>>>> Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > >>> 100/6
> > >>>> =
> > >>>>> 18
> > >>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > >> better
> > >>>> if
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > >>>>> enforces
> > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > >>>>> improve
> > >>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > >> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > >>> when
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> expect
> > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > >> caused
> > >>> by
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > >>> more
> > >>>>>>> robust
> > >>>>>>>> way,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > >>> revealed
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > >> Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > >> anti
> > >>>>> pattern.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > >> fix
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > >> further
> > >>>>> tickets
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > >>>> Maxim
> > >>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > >>>> keeping
> > >>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>> base
> > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > >> case
> > >>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > >> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > >>> Vinogradov
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > >>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > >>>>>>> commits
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > >>>> before
> > >>>>>>>> massive
> > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > >>>>>>> possibility
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > >> TC
> > >>>>> report
> > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>> (get
> > >>>>>>>> rid
> > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > >>> option.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > >>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > >> will
> > >>>>> you try
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > >> to
> > >>> do
> > >>>>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > >>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > >>>>> noop. It
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > >>> contributed
> > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > >>>>> problem in
> > >>>>>>>> saving
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > >> all?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > >>> me
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > >>>>> choice.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > >> handlers
> > >>>>> are not
> > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > >> this
> > >>>>> change,
> > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > >> approach
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > >>>> fix,
> > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > >>> first.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > >>> why
> > >>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > >>> before
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > >> rollback.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > >>>> Eduard
> > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > >>> problem
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> saving
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > >> PM
> > >>>>> Павлухин
> > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > >> And I
> > >>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>> like to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > >>> "use
> > >>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > >>>> these
> > >>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > >>> failures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> revert
> > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > >> A
> > >>>> lot
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > >> everything
> > >>>>> I've
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > >>> better,
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>> commit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > >> contribute
> > >>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > >> revert
> > >>>> by
> > >>>>>>> veto,
> > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > >>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > >> 14:53,
> > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > >>> summarize
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > >>> added a
> > >>>>> very
> > >>>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > >>>>> think it
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > >>> overweight
> > >>>>>>>> positive
> > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > >>> 14:03,
> > >>>>> Anton
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > >>> idea
> > >>>>> to ask
> > >>>>>>>> me to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > >> not
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>> author
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > >> community
> > >>>>> member,
> > >>>>>>>> ask
> > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > >> able
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> merge
> > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
> > >> fix".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
> > >>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
> > >> to
> > >>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>> something,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
> > >>>>> fixes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > >> at
> > >>>>> 1:40 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
> > >> provide
> > >>>> PR
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> demo
> > >>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
> > >> revert a
> > >>>>>>>> contribution
> > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
> > >>>> discuss
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
> > >> test
> > >>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>> fixes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> later
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
> > >> as
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>> option
> > >>>>>>>>>>> - ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> > >> в
> > >>>>> 13:35,
> > >>>>>>>> Anton
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
> > >>>> these
> > >>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
> > >>> failures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
> > >>>> acceptable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
> > >> you
> > >>>>> have to
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ready to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
> > >>> this
> > >>>>> way
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
> > >> unacceptable
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>> hide
> > >>>>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
> > >> as
> > >>> a
> > >>>>>>>> reviewer, to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
> > >> at
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> test we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> solved by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
> > >>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
> > >> 2018
> > >>>> at
> > >>>>> 1:10
> > >>>>>>>> PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
> > >> any
> > >>>>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
> > >>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>> became
> > >>>>>>>>>>> default long
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
> > >>>>> authors of
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> previous
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Ilya

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

>> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then
on
>> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
>> constructive manner.
Agree

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:

> Anton.
>
> I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
>
> 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
>
> So, this fix make things better.
>
> I think we shouldn't revert it.
>
> I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
>
> Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
>
> On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > demonstrate
> >>> the idea.
> >
> > Dmitriy,
> > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> duplication
> > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> merged.
> > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
> >
> > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> objections.
> > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> >
> > Dmitrii,
> >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > reasons for
> >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> needed.
> >
> > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> evening,
> > the code will be rolled back.
> > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> for
> >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
> >>
> >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >>
> >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> >> always
> >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> >>>
> >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> this
> >>> test,
> >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
> is
> >>> checked?
> >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> >>>
> >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> >> demonstrate
> >>> the idea.
> >>>
> >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> Dmitrii,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> >>> for
> >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> >>> no-op
> >>>> to have a proper handler?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> >>> step.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> >>>> like
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> >> ticket
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> >> vololo100@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> >>> tests
> >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> >>> from
> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> >>> absolutely
> >>>>>>> nothing
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> >> a
> >>>>>>> practical
> >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> >>> (and
> >>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>> a>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >>> approach
> >>>>> how to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> >> cheap
> >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> >> all
> >>>>> places
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> >>> not
> >>>>> got a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> >>> require
> >>>>> noop
> >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> >> are
> >>>>> covered
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >>> approach
> >>>>> how to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> >> cheap
> >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> >> away
> >>> I
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> >>> be
> >>>>>>> costly.
> >>>>>>>> So,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> >>> happen
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> sure:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> >>> (and
> >>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> >>> and
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>>>> do it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> >>>>> guarantee
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> >>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> >>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> >>>>> details
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> >> commit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> >> be
> >>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> >> be
> >>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> >>> something
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> >>>>> implementation as
> >>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> >> Apache
> >>>>> Way, -
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> >> we
> >>>>> stop
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> >>>>> anti-patterns in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> >>> (only)
> >>>>>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> >> test
> >>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>> By
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >>>>>>>> tests,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> >>> no-op
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> >>> are
> >>>>>>> allowed
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> >>>> disagreements
> >>>>>>>> here? Why
> >>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> >>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> >>>>> reverting
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> >>>>> Dmitrii
> >>>>>>> R.?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> >>> mutes
> >>>>>>>> problem, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> >>>> Bot.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> >> I
> >>>>> guess,
> >>>>>>> no,
> >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> >>>> better
> >>>>> fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> join
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> >>> More
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> >> I
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> care too
> >>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> >> provide
> >>>>> facts
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> >>>> should
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> >>>>> negative
> >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> >> enabled
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>>>> proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> sharing
> >>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> >>> have
> >>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> >>>>> contributors? I
> >>>>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> >>>>> principle'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> >>>> class
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> >>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> >> found
> >>>>> with IDE
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> grep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> >>>>>>> demonstrate
> >>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> >>>>> related
> >>>>>>>> much to
> >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> >>> someone
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> >>>>> solution
> >>>>>>>> and say
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> >> nowhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> >>>>> better he
> >>>>>>>> or she
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> >>>> those
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>>>> do can
> >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> >>>>> do-ocracy
> >>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> >> problem
> >>>>> (we had
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> >> found
> >>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> >>> stop-node
> >>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> >> care.
> >>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> >>> 100/6
> >>>> =
> >>>>> 18
> >>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> double
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> >> better
> >>>> if
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> >>>>> enforces
> >>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> >>>>> improve
> >>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> >> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> >>> when
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> >> caused
> >>> by
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> >>> more
> >>>>>>> robust
> >>>>>>>> way,
> >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> >>> revealed
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> >> Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> >> anti
> >>>>> pattern.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> >> fix
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> >> further
> >>>>> tickets
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> >>>> Maxim
> >>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> >>>> keeping
> >>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>> base
> >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> >> case
> >>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> >> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> >>> Vinogradov
> >>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> >>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>> continue :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> >>> over-copy-pasted
> >>>>>>> commits
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> >>>>> Mashenkov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> >>>> before
> >>>>>>>> massive
> >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> >>>>>>> possibility
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> >> TC
> >>>>> report
> >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> >>>> this
> >>>>> (get
> >>>>>>>> rid
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> >>> option.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> >>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> >> will
> >>>>> you try
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> >> to
> >>> do
> >>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> >>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> >>>>> noop. It
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> >>> contributed
> >>>>>>>> mechanism
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> >>>>> Vinogradov
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> >>>>> problem in
> >>>>>>>> saving
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> >> all?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> >>> me
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> >>>>> choice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> >> handlers
> >>>>> are not
> >>>>>>>> ok!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> >> this
> >>>>> change,
> >>>>>>>> I ask
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> >>>>>>> intentionally
> >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> >> approach
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> >>>> fix,
> >>>>>>>> reopen the
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> >>> first.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> >>> why
> >>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>> fail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> >>> before
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> fix was
> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> >> rollback.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> >>>> Eduard
> >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> >>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> >>> problem
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> saving
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> >> PM
> >>>>> Павлухин
> >>>>>>>> Иван
> >>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> >> And I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> like to
> >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> >>> "use
> >>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> >>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> >>>> these
> >>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> >>> failures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> >>> to
> >>>>> revert
> >>>>>>>>>> other's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> >> A
> >>>> lot
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> >> everything
> >>>>> I've
> >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> >>> better,
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>> commit
> >>>>>>>>>>> further
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> >> contribute
> >>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> >> revert
> >>>> by
> >>>>>>> veto,
> >>>>>>>>>> please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> >>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> 14:53,
> >>>>>>> Павлухин
> >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> >>> summarize
> >>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> >>> added a
> >>>>> very
> >>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> >>>>> think it
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> >>> overweight
> >>>>>>>> positive
> >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> >>> 14:03,
> >>>>> Anton
> >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> >>> idea
> >>>>> to ask
> >>>>>>>> me to
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> >> not
> >>> an
> >>>>>>> author
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> >> community
> >>>>> member,
> >>>>>>>> ask
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> >> able
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> >>> to
> >>>>> merge
> >>>>>>>> fix of
> >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
> >> fix".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
> >>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
> >> to
> >>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>> something,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
> >>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> >> at
> >>>>> 1:40 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
> >> provide
> >>>> PR
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> demo
> >>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
> >> revert a
> >>>>>>>> contribution
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
> >>>> discuss
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
> >> test
> >>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>> fixes
> >>>>>>>>>>> later
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
> >> as
> >>>> the
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>> - ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> >> в
> >>>>> 13:35,
> >>>>>>>> Anton
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
> >>>> these
> >>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
> >>> failures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
> >>>> acceptable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
> >> you
> >>>>> have to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> ready to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
> >>> this
> >>>>> way
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>> was the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
> >> unacceptable
> >>>> to
> >>>>> hide
> >>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
> >> as
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>> reviewer, to
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
> >> at
> >>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> test we
> >>>>>>>>>>> solved by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
> >>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>> in case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
> >> 2018
> >>>> at
> >>>>> 1:10
> >>>>>>>> PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
> >> any
> >>>>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
> >>>> no-op
> >>>>>>> became
> >>>>>>>>>>> default long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
> >>>>> authors of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Anton.

I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.

1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.

So, this fix make things better.

I think we shouldn't revert it.

I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.

Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?

On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>
> Dmitriy,
> Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> unacceptable code merge situation.
> Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
> and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
merged.
> The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
>
> Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
objections.
> But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
>
> Dmitrii,
>>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> reasons for
>>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
> the code will be rolled back.
> Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
for
>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>>
>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>>
>>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
>> always
>>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>>>
>>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
>>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
>>> test,
>>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
is
>>> checked?
>>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>>>
>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
>> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>>>
>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> Dmitrii,
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
>>> no-op
>>>> to have a proper handler?
>>>>
>>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
>>> step.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
>>>>> looks good to me so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
>>>> like
>>>>> we
>>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
>> ticket
>>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> vololo100@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
>>> tests
>>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
>>> from
>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
>> the
>>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
>>> absolutely
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
>> a
>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a>
>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
>>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
>> all
>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
>>> not
>>>>> got a
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
>>> require
>>>>> noop
>>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
>> are
>>>>> covered
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
>> away
>>> I
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
>>> be
>>>>>>> costly.
>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
>>> happen
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sure:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
>>> and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> do it
>>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
>>>>> details
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>>> something
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>>>>> implementation as
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> Apache
>>>>> Way, -
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
>> we
>>>>> stop
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>>>>> anti-patterns in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
>>> (only)
>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
>>> no-op
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
>>> are
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> have with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>>>> disagreements
>>>>>>>> here? Why
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>>>>> reverting
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>> R.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>>> mutes
>>>>>>>> problem, as
>>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
>>>> Bot.
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
>> I
>>>>> guess,
>>>>>>> no,
>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>>>> better
>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
>>>> this
>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
>>> More
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
>> I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> care too
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> provide
>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
>>>> should
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> enabled
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
>>> of
>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>>> have
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>>>>> contributors? I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>>>>> principle'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
>>> of
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
>>>> class
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> found
>>>>> with IDE
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> grep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> much to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>>> someone
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>> and say
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> nowhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
>>>>> better he
>>>>>>>> or she
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> do can
>>>>>>>>>>> make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>>>>> do-ocracy
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> problem
>>>>> (we had
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> found
>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>>> stop-node
>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> care.
>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>>> 100/6
>>>> =
>>>>> 18
>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> better
>>>> if
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
>>>>> enforces
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>> code but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>>> when
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> caused
>>> by
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>>> more
>>>>>>> robust
>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>>> revealed
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> anti
>>>>> pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> fix
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> further
>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>>>> Maxim
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> made and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>>>>>>>> "improvements".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>>>> keeping
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> case
>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>>> Vinogradov
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>>> to
>>>>>>>> continue :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>>> over-copy-pasted
>>>>>>> commits
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>>>>> Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>>>> before
>>>>>>>> massive
>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> using any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> TC
>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>>> attached.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>>>> this
>>>>> (get
>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>>> option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> will
>>>>> you try
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> research a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> to
>>> do
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>>>>> noop. It
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>>> contributed
>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>>>>> Vinogradov
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>>>> problem in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>>> me
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
>> handlers
>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>> ok!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
>> this
>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>> I ask
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>> activate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
>> approach
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
>>>> fix,
>>>>>>>> reopen the
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
>>> why
>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
>>> before
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fix was
>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
>> rollback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>> problem
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
>> PM
>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>> Иван
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
>> And I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>> respell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
>>> "use
>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
>>>> these
>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
>>> to
>>>>> revert
>>>>>>>>>> other's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
>> A
>>>> lot
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
>> everything
>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
>>> better,
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
>> contribute
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
>> revert
>>>> by
>>>>>>> veto,
>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>> please feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 14:53,
>>>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>>>> Иван <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo100@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
>>> summarize
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
>>> added a
>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>> thing --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
>>>>> think it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
>>> overweight
>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>> result? And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>>> 14:03,
>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
>>> idea
>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>> me to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
>> not
>>> an
>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
>> community
>>>>> member,
>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
>> able
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
>>> to
>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>> fix of
>>>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
>> fix".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
>> to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
>> at
>>>>> 1:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
>> provide
>>>> PR
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> demo
>>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
>> revert a
>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
>>>> discuss
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
>> test
>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
>> as
>>>> the
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> - ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
>> в
>>>>> 13:35,
>>>>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
>>>> these
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
>> you
>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
>>> this
>>>>> way
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
>> unacceptable
>>>> to
>>>>> hide
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
>> as
>>> a
>>>>>>>> reviewer, to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
>> at
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> test we
>>>>>>>>>>> solved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
>> 2018
>>>> at
>>>>> 1:10
>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
>> any
>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>> no-op
>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>>>> default long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
>>>>> authors of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton, I have another proposal. We stop, for now, then you will chill a
little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then on
Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
constructive manner.

Trying to win in a match "my revert is bigger than yours/my code is better
than yours" will not help to anyone.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 15:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> >> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
> >> the idea.
>
> Dmitriy,
> Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> unacceptable code merge situation.
> Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
> and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> merged.
> The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
>
> Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> objections.
> But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
>
> Dmitrii,
> >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> reasons for
> >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
> the code will be rolled back.
> Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> for
> > no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >
> > > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> > always
> > > require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > >
> > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> > > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> this
> > > test,
> > > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
> is
> > > checked?
> > > - failure handler influence, etc.
> > >
> > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > demonstrate
> > > the idea.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >
> > > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > > for
> > > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> > > no-op
> > > > to have a proper handler?
> > > >
> > > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > > step.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > > looks good to me so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> looks
> > > > like
> > > > > we
> > > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > ticket
> > > > for
> > > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> good
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > tests
> > > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> opinion
> > > from
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > the
> > > > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It
> is
> > a
> > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > (and
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > approach
> > > > > how to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > cheap
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> the
> > > > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > all
> > > > > places
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
> have
> > > not
> > > > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > require
> > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > are
> > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > approach
> > > > > how to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > cheap
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > away
> > > I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> could
> > > be
> > > > > > > costly.
> > > > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> > > happen
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > (and
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> patch
> > > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
> because I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> test
> > > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
> failures
> > in
> > > > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
> minor
> > > > > details
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > be
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
> approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > be
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > something
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > implementation as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The
> > Apache
> > > > > Way, -
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode -
> until
> > we
> > > > > stop
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > (only)
> > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > test
> > > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > disagreements
> > > > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability
> from
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > mutes
> > > > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the
> TC
> > > > Bot.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the
> contribution?
> > I
> > > > > guess,
> > > > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > better
> > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people
> in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with
> some
> > > > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > More
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all
> -
> > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > provide
> > > > > facts
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide
> just
> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > enabled
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be
> afraid
> > > of
> > > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > have
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > contributors? I
> > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker
> base
> > > > class
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > found
> > > > > with IDE
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is
> not
> > > > > related
> > > > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a
> silly
> > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to
> > nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make
> things
> > > > > better he
> > > > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named
> do-ocracy,
> > > > those
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of
> how
> > > > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > problem
> > > > > (we had
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > found
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > stop-node
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > care.
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > 100/6
> > > > =
> > > > > 18
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things
> > better
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize
> and
> > > > > enforces
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want
> to
> > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail
> cases
> > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > caused
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked
> in
> > > more
> > > > > > > robust
> > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > revealed
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like
> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known
> > anti
> > > > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same
> > fix
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the
> > further
> > > > > tickets
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my
> and
> > > > Maxim
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy
> paste
> > > > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > keeping
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > case
> > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone
> ready
> > > to
> > > > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> > > over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > > commits
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the
> PR
> > > > before
> > > > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to
> investigate
> > > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with
> > TC
> > > > > report
> > > > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to
> do
> > > > this
> > > > > (get
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here
> > will
> > > > > you try
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to
> create
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests
> with
> > > > > noop. It
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> > > contributed
> > > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > problem in
> > > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> > all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok
> to
> > > me
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a
> better
> > > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > handlers
> > > > > are not
> > > > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do
> > this
> > > > > change,
> > > > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide
> > approach
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback
> this
> > > > fix,
> > > > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> > > first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this
> game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the
> reasons
> > > why
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> > > before
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after
> > rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49
> PM
> > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > problem
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > PM
> > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch.
> > And I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> > > "use
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 15:09,
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov
> explained
> > > > these
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> > > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no
> reason
> > > to
> > > > > revert
> > > > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things
> better.
> > A
> > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert
> > everything
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> > > better,
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you
> > contribute
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to
> > revert
> > > > by
> > > > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with
> all
> > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 14:53,
> > > > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > > summarize
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> > > added a
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests.
> And I
> > > > > think it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> > > overweight
> > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 14:03,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> > > idea
> > > > > to ask
> > > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm
> > not
> > > an
> > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a
> > community
> > > > > member,
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> acceptable
> > > to
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste
> > fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not
> > to
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what
> it
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please
> > provide
> > > > PR
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to
> > revert a
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > > > discuss
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of
> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a
> > test
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> г.
> > в
> > > > > 13:35,
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said
> before,
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
demonstrate
>> the idea.

Dmitriy,
Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
unacceptable code merge situation.
Such merges should NEVER happen again.
Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
and fixes without proper reason investigation.
Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he merged.
The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.

Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some objections.
But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.

Dmitrii,
>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
reasons for
>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.

In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
the code will be rolled back.
Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for
> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>
> > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> always
> > require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> >
> > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> > test,
> > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> > checked?
> > - failure handler influence, etc.
> >
> > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
> > the idea.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> > for
> > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> > no-op
> > > to have a proper handler?
> > >
> > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > step.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > >
> > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > looks good to me so far.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> > > like
> > > > we
> > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > > for
> > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > > that
> > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > tests
> > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > from
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> the
> > > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > absolutely
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> a
> > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > (and
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > approach
> > > > how to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> cheap
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> all
> > > > places
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > not
> > > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > require
> > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> are
> > > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > approach
> > > > how to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> cheap
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> away
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > be
> > > > > > costly.
> > > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> > happen
> > > > for
> > > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > (and
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > guarantee
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> in
> > > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > details
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> be
> > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> be
> > > > better.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > something
> > > > with
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > implementation as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The
> Apache
> > > > Way, -
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> we
> > > > stop
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > (only)
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> test
> > > > failure.
> > > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > are
> > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > disagreements
> > > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > mutes
> > > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > Bot.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> I
> > > > guess,
> > > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > better
> > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > this
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > More
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> provide
> > > > facts
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> enabled
> > > > without
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > of
> > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > have
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > contributors? I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > of
> > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > class
> > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> > current
> > > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> found
> > > > with IDE
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > related
> > > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> > someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > solution
> > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to
> nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > better he
> > > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > those
> > > > who
> > > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> problem
> > > > (we had
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> found
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> > stop-node
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who
> care.
> > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > 100/6
> > > =
> > > > 18
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things
> better
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > enforces
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > improve
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> caused
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > more
> > > > > > robust
> > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > revealed
> > > > the
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known
> anti
> > > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same
> fix
> > > > with
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the
> further
> > > > tickets
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > Maxim
> > > > time
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > keeping
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in
> case
> > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste
> code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > to
> > > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> > over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > commits
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > before
> > > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with
> TC
> > > > report
> > > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > this
> > > > (get
> > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here
> will
> > > > you try
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others
> to
> > do
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > noop. It
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> > contributed
> > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > > problem in
> > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > me
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> handlers
> > > > are not
> > > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do
> this
> > > > change,
> > > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide
> approach
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> > > fix,
> > > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> > first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons
> > why
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> > before
> > > > the
> > > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after
> rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > problem
> > > > in
> > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> PM
> > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch.
> And I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> > "use
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > these
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason
> > to
> > > > revert
> > > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better.
> A
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert
> everything
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> > better,
> > > > just
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you
> contribute
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to
> revert
> > > by
> > > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 14:53,
> > > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > summarize
> > > > what
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> > added a
> > > > very
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > > > think it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> > overweight
> > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 14:03,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> > idea
> > > > to ask
> > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm
> not
> > an
> > > > > > author
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a
> community
> > > > member,
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not
> able
> > > to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable
> > to
> > > > merge
> > > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste
> fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not
> to
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please
> provide
> > > PR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to
> revert a
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > > discuss
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a
> test
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest
> as
> > > the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > > > 13:35,
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> > > these
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> > > acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer,
> you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
> > this
> > > > way
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> unacceptable
> > > to
> > > > hide
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you,
> as
> > a
> > > > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and
> at
> > > > what
> > > > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > at
> > > > 1:10
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do
> any
> > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> > > no-op
> > > > > > became
> > > > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > > > authors of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide
> a
> > PR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > > > believe it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from
> > any
> > > > pool
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> > г.
> > > в
> > > > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which
> code
> > > > block
> > > > > > > will do
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on
> the
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> > > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > > > correct
> > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > > expect
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for
no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:

> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always
> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>
> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> test,
> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> checked?
> - failure handler influence, etc.
>
> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate
> the idea.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> for
> > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> no-op
> > to have a proper handler?
> >
> > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> step.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > >
> > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > looks good to me so far.
> > >
> > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> > like
> > > we
> > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> > for
> > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > that
> > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> tests
> > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> from
> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> absolutely
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> (and
> > > > > create
> > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> approach
> > > how to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> > > places
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> not
> > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> require
> > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> approach
> > > how to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away
> I
> > > can
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> be
> > > > > costly.
> > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> happen
> > > for
> > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> (and
> > > > > create
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> and
> > > then
> > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > guarantee
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > believe
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > details
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > > better.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> something
> > > with
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > implementation as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> > > Way, -
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> > > stop
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> (only)
> > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > failure.
> > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> no-op
> > > was
> > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> are
> > > > > allowed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > disagreements
> > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> mutes
> > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > Bot.
> > > Is
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> > > guess,
> > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > better
> > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > this
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> More
> > > you
> > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> > > don't
> > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> > > facts
> > > > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > negative
> > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> > > without
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> of
> > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> have
> > an
> > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > contributors? I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> of
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > class
> > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> current
> > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> > > with IDE
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > related
> > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> someone
> > > will
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > solution
> > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > better he
> > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > those
> > > who
> > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> > > (we had
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> > > after
> > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> stop-node
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> 100/6
> > =
> > > 18
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > enforces
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > improve
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
> when
> > > we
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
> more
> > > > > robust
> > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> revealed
> > > the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> > > with
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> > > tickets
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> > Maxim
> > > time
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > keeping
> > > > > code
> > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> to
> > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > commits
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > before
> > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > possibility
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> > > report
> > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > this
> > > (get
> > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> > > you try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to
> do
> > > > > things
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > ticket
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > noop. It
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> contributed
> > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > problem in
> > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to
> me
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> > > are not
> > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> > > change,
> > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> > > without
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> > fix,
> > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons
> why
> > > tests
> > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> before
> > > the
> > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> problem
> > > in
> > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> > > Павлухин
> > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> > > would
> > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> "use
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > these
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason
> to
> > > revert
> > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> > > I've
> > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> better,
> > > just
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
> > some
> > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
> > by
> > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> summarize
> > > what
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> added a
> > > very
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > > think it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> overweight
> > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 14:03,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> idea
> > > to ask
> > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not
> an
> > > > > author
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> > > member,
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
> > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable
> to
> > > merge
> > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > explanation
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
> > PR
> > > to
> > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > discuss
> > > not
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> > > failure
> > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
> > the
> > > only
> > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 13:35,
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> > these
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> > acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> > > have to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
> this
> > > way
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
> > to
> > > hide
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as
> a
> > > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> > > what
> > > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > > rollback
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > 1:10
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> > no-op
> > > > > became
> > > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > > authors of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a
> PR
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > > believe it
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from
> any
> > > pool
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> г.
> > в
> > > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> > > block
> > > > > > will do
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> > make
> > > the
> > > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > > correct
> > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > expect
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always
require to understand what test does and what it tests.

So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
- a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
test,
- what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
checked?
- failure handler influence, etc.

I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate
the idea.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op
> to have a proper handler?
>
> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> >
> > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > looks good to me so far.
> >
> > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> like
> > we
> > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > >
> > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> for
> > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> > >
> > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > >
> > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> that
> > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > > > nothing
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > > practical
> > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > > create
> > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> > how to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> > places
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
> > got a
> > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
> > noop
> > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> > covered
> > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> > how to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
> > can
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > > > costly.
> > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
> > for
> > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and
> > then
> > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > guarantee
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > believe
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > details
> > > > if
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > better.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > better.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something
> > with
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > implementation as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> > Way, -
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> > stop
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > anti-patterns in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > failure.
> > > > > By
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> > was
> > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > > > allowed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> disagreements
> > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > absolutely
> > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > reverting
> > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > Dmitrii
> > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> Bot.
> > Is
> > > > he
> > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> > guess,
> > > > no,
> > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> better
> > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> this
> > > > thread
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
> > you
> > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> > don't
> > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> > facts
> > > > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> should
> > be
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > negative
> > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> > without
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > > > sharing
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have
> an
> > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > contributors? I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> class
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> > with IDE
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > demonstrate
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > related
> > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
> > will
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > solution
> > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > better he
> > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> those
> > who
> > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> > (we had
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> > after
> > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> > Anton,
> > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6
> =
> > 18
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
> if
> > we
> > > > go
> > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > enforces
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > improve
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> > we
> > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by
> > the
> > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > > > robust
> > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
> > the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> > with
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> > tickets
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> Maxim
> > time
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> keeping
> > > > code
> > > > > base
> > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > arguments
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > > > commits
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> before
> > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > possibility
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> > report
> > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> this
> > (get
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> > you try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > > > things
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > ticket
> > > > and
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > noop. It
> > > > is
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > problem in
> > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> > are not
> > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> > change,
> > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> > without
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> fix,
> > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
> > tests
> > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before
> > the
> > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> Eduard
> > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem
> > in
> > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> > Павлухин
> > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> > would
> > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
> > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> these
> > > > tests
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
> > revert
> > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
> lot
> > of
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> > I've
> > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
> > just
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
> some
> > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
> by
> > > > veto,
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
> > what
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a
> > very
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > think it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
> > to ask
> > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > > > author
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> > member,
> > > > > ask
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
> to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
> > merge
> > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > explanation
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> > rollback
> > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
> PR
> > to
> > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> discuss
> > not
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> > failure
> > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
> the
> > only
> > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 13:35,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> these
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> > have to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this
> > way
> > > > and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
> to
> > hide
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> > what
> > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > rollback
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > 1:10
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> no-op
> > > > became
> > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > authors of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR
> > to
> > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > believe it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
> > pool
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> > block
> > > > > will do
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> make
> > the
> > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > correct
> > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> expect
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
> > you to
> > > > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> > 2018 at
> > > > > 12:39
> > > > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > > > reason
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
> > these
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitrii,

>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op
to have a proper handler?

Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>
> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> looks good to me so far.
>
> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like
> we
> > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> >
> > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
> >
> > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nikolay,
> > > >
> > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > > nothing
> > > > in
> > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > practical
> > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > create
> > > > a>
> > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> how to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> places
> > > > with
> > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
> got a
> > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
> noop
> > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> covered
> > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> how to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
> can
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > > costly.
> > > > So,
> > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
> for
> > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and
> then
> > > > do it
> > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> guarantee
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> believe
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> failure.
> > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> details
> > > if
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> better.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something
> with
> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> implementation as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> Way, -
> > > > and
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> stop
> > > this
> > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> anti-patterns in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > > perfect
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> failure.
> > > > By
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > tests,
> > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> was
> > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > > allowed
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> absolutely
> > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> reverting
> > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> Dmitrii
> > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot.
> Is
> > > he
> > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> guess,
> > > no,
> > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better
> fix.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> > > thread
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
> you
> > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> don't
> > > > care too
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> facts
> > > we
> > > > need
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should
> be
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> negative
> > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> without
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > > sharing
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> contributors? I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > > thinking
> > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class
> for
> > > a
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> with IDE
> > > > or
> > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > demonstrate
> > > > my
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> related
> > > > much to
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
> will
> > > > just
> > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> solution
> > > > and say
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> better he
> > > > or she
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those
> who
> > > > do can
> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> do-ocracy
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> (we had
> > > > it
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> after
> > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > > handler
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> Anton,
> > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 =
> 18
> > > > tests
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if
> we
> > > go
> > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> enforces
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> improve
> > > > project
> > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> we
> > > > expect
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by
> the
> > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > > robust
> > > > way,
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
> the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> with
> > > > better
> > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> tickets
> > > > to
> > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim
> time
> > > > to
> > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> > > code
> > > > base
> > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > arguments
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > > commits
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > > > massive
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > possibility
> > > > of
> > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> report
> > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this
> (get
> > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> you try
> > > > to
> > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > > things
> > > > for
> > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> ticket
> > > and
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> noop. It
> > > is
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> problem in
> > > > saving
> > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> are not
> > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> change,
> > > > I ask
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > intentionally
> > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> without
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
> tests
> > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before
> the
> > > > fix was
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem
> in
> > > > saving
> > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> Павлухин
> > > > Иван
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> would
> > > > like to
> > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
> no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> > > tests
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
> revert
> > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot
> of
> > > > people
> > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> I've
> > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
> just
> > > > commit
> > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> > > veto,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > community,
> > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > Павлухин
> > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
> what
> > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a
> very
> > > > good
> > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> think it
> > > is
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > > positive
> > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03,
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
> to ask
> > > > me to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > > author
> > > > or
> > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> member,
> > > > ask
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
> merge
> > > > fix of
> > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> explanation
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> rollback
> > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 1:40 PM
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR
> to
> > > > demo
> > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss
> not
> > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> failure
> > > > fixes
> > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the
> only
> > > > > > option
> > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 13:35,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> have to
> > > be
> > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this
> way
> > > and
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to
> hide
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> what
> > > > test we
> > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> rollback
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 1:10
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > rollback
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> > > became
> > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> authors of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> believe it
> > > > will
> > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
> pool
> > > > inside
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 13:05,
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> block
> > > > will do
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make
> the
> > > > *bad
> > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> correct
> > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > > > failure
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
> you to
> > > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018 at
> > > > 12:39
> > > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
> these
> > > > test
> > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's
> create a
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+
> touched
> > > > files in
> > > > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > > > affected
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> > > failover
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there
> is no
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test
> should set
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > > > simulation
> > > > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > at
> > > > > > 12:16
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means
> "hide
> > > any
> > > > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> please
> > > > share
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with
> a
> > > > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I
> think
> > > > wrapping
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable
> > > than
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек.
> 2018
> > > г.,
> > > > > > 9:26
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let
> me
> > > > remind
> > > > > > > you that
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> meaningful
> > > > > > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you
> to
> > > > Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> review
> > > > > > > remaining tests
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > > г.,
> > > > > > > 23:48
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really,
> why
> > > > noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you
> expect
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and
> rise
> > > > some
> > > > > > > flag,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will
> > > make
> > > > test
> > > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> noop,
> > > > you'll
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve,
> > > > isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > г.
> > > > > > 23:25
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Dmitrii Ryabov,

Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
looks good to me so far.

P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>
> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we
> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>
> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:
>
> > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nikolay,
> > >
> > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > patch then let's do it.
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > >
> > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > nothing
> > > in
> > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > practical
> > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > create
> > > a>
> > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > > the
> > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> > > with
> > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > > the
> > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> > > suggest
> > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > costly.
> > > So,
> > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> > > sure:
> > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> > > do it
> > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee
> > it.
> > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> > > that
> > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details
> > if
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > But
> > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> > > better
> > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> > > and
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop
> > this
> > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> > > the
> > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > perfect
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > By
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > tests,
> > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > allowed
> > > to
> > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > > here? Why
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii
> > R.?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > problem, as
> > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is
> > he
> > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess,
> > no,
> > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> > thread
> > > > > will
> > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> > > care too
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts
> > we
> > > need
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> > > no-op
> > > > > or
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > sharing
> > > > > this.
> > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> > > believe
> > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > thinking
> > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for
> > a
> > > > > cases
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> > > or
> > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > demonstrate
> > > my
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> > > much to
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> > > just
> > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> > > and say
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> > > or she
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> > > do can
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > > > should
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> > > it
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > handler
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> > > tests
> > > > > to
> > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we
> > go
> > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> > > project
> > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > > expect
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > robust
> > > way,
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> > > existing
> > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> > > better
> > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> > > to
> > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> > > to
> > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> > code
> > > base
> > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > arguments
> > > > > will
> > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > commits
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > > massive
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > possibility
> > > of
> > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> > > to
> > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > things
> > > for
> > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket
> > and
> > > > > check
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It
> > is
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > mechanism
> > > > > for
> > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > > saving
> > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with
> > the
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> > > I ask
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > intentionally
> > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > > reopen the
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> > > fix was
> > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > > saving
> > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> > > Иван
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> > > like to
> > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> > tests
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> > > people
> > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> > > commit
> > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> > veto,
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > community,
> > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > Павлухин
> > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> > > does
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> > > good
> > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it
> > is
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > positive
> > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> > > me to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > author
> > > or
> > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> > > ask
> > > > > you
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > > provide
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> > > fix of
> > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> > > of the
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> > > demo
> > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > contribution
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> > > fixes
> > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > > > option
> > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > > changes
> > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to
> > be
> > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way
> > and
> > > > > what
> > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> > > test we
> > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> > > changes
> > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> > > PM
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > rollback
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> > became
> > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> > > the
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> > > will
> > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> > > inside
> > > > > a
> > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 13:05,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> > > will do
> > > > > a
> > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> > > *bad
> > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct
> > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > > failure
> > > > > you
> > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:39
> > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > failure
> > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > reason
> > > to
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> > > test
> > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> > > files in
> > > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > > affected
> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> > failover
> > > > > test
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > > simulation
> > > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 12:16
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide
> > any
> > > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > > share
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> > > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > > at
> > > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think
> > > wrapping
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable
> > than
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> > г.,
> > > > > 9:26
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me
> > > remind
> > > > > > you that
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > > > > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to
> > > Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > remaining tests
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> > > г.,
> > > > > > 23:48
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why
> > > noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise
> > > some
> > > > > > flag,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will
> > make
> > > test
> > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop,
> > > you'll
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve,
> > > isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018
> > г.
> > > > > 23:25
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have
> > to
> > > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we
create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.

I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
appropriate changes and recheck issues.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov av@apache.org:

> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > patch then let's do it.
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > >
> > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > >
> > > Sorry, one more time.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > >
> > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >
> > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > >
> > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> nothing
> > in
> > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> practical
> > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ivan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> create
> > a>
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >
> > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > the
> > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > refactoring.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > product(Ignite
> > > > > and others).
> > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> > with
> > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > the
> > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > refactoring.
> > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> > suggest
> > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> costly.
> > So,
> > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> > sure:
> > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> create
> > a
> > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> > do it
> > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee
> it.
> > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> > that
> > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details
> if
> > > > no-op
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > But
> > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> > better
> > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> > and
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop
> this
> > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> > the
> > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> perfect
> > > > code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > By
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> > tests,
> > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> allowed
> > to
> > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > here? Why
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii
> R.?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > problem, as
> > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is
> he
> > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess,
> no,
> > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> thread
> > > > will
> > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> > care too
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts
> we
> > need
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> > no-op
> > > > or
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> > proper
> > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> sharing
> > > > this.
> > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> > believe
> > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> thinking
> > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for
> a
> > > > cases
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> > or
> > > > grep
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> demonstrate
> > my
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> > much to
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> > just
> > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> > and say
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> > or she
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> > do can
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > > should
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> > it
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> handler
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> > tests
> > > > to
> > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we
> go
> > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > > someone
> > > > > else
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> > project
> > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > expect
> > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> robust
> > way,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> > existing
> > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> > better
> > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> > to
> > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> > to
> > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> code
> > base
> > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> arguments
> > > > will
> > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> commits
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > massive
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> possibility
> > of
> > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> > to
> > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> things
> > for
> > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket
> and
> > > > check
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It
> is
> > > > easy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > mechanism
> > > > for
> > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > saving
> > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with
> the
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> > I ask
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> intentionally
> > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > reopen the
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> > fix was
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > Shangareev
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > saving
> > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> > Иван
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> > like to
> > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> tests
> > are
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> > people
> > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> > commit
> > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> veto,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> community,
> > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> Павлухин
> > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> > does
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> > good
> > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it
> is
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > positive
> > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> > me to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> author
> > or
> > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> > ask
> > > > you
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > provide
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> > fix of
> > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> > of the
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> > demo
> > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > contribution
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> > fixes
> > > > > later
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > > option
> > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > changes
> > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to
> be
> > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way
> and
> > > > what
> > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > > issues
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > reviewer, to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> > test we
> > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> > changes
> > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> > PM
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> rollback
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> became
> > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> > the
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> > will
> > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> > inside
> > > > a
> > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 13:05,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> > will do
> > > > a
> > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> > *bad
> > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct
> fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > failure
> > > > you
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 12:39
> > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> failure
> > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> reason
> > to
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> > test
> > > > > become
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > > ticket
> > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> > files in
> > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > affected
> > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> failover
> > > > test
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > > custom
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > simulation
> > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 12:16
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide
> any
> > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > share
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think
> > wrapping
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable
> than
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> г.,
> > > > 9:26
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me
> > remind
> > > > > you that
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > > > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to
> > Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > remaining tests
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> > г.,
> > > > > 23:48
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why
> > noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise
> > some
> > > > > flag,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will
> make
> > test
> > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop,
> > you'll
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve,
> > isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018
> г.
> > > > 23:25
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have
> to
> > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nikolay,
>
> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> patch then let's do it.
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >
> > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >
> > Sorry, one more time.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >
> > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > >
> > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > >
> > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing
> in
> > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Ivan.
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a>
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > >
> > > > I support this idea.
> > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >
> > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> product(Ignite
> > > > and others).
> > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> with
> > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > there.
> > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> suggest
> > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly.
> So,
> > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> sure:
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> do it
> > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> that
> > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> But
> > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> better
> > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> and
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > > code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> By
> > > this
> > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> tests,
> > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed
> to
> > > > have with
> > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> here? Why
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> problem, as
> > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > > will
> > > > join
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> care too
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we
> need
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> no-op
> > > or
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> proper
> > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > > this.
> > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > absolutely
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> believe
> > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > > cases
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> or
> > > grep
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate
> my
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> much to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> just
> > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> and say
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> or she
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> do can
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > should
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> it
> > > > before
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > > after
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> tests
> > > to
> > > > double
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > someone
> > > > else
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> project
> > > > code but
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust
> way,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> existing
> > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> better
> > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> to
> > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> to
> > > > made and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code
> base
> > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > > will
> > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> massive
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility
> of
> > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> to
> > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things
> for
> > > > you,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > > check
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> mechanism
> > > for
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> I ask
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > > activate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> reopen the
> > > > issue
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> fix was
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > Shangareev
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> Иван
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> like to
> > > > respell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests
> are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > other's
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> people
> > > > can do
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> commit
> > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > improvements
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > > please feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> does
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> good
> > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> positive
> > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> me to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author
> or
> > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> ask
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> provide
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> fix of
> > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> of the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > something,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> demo
> > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> contribution
> > > if
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> fixes
> > > > later
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > option
> > > > - ok
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> changes
> > > > allow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > > what
> > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > issues
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> reviewer, to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> test we
> > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> changes
> > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > > because
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > > default long
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> the
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> will
> > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> inside
> > > a
> > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> will do
> > > a
> > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> *bad
> > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> failure
> > > you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:39
> > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason
> to
> > > > fallback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> test
> > > > become
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > ticket
> > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> files in
> > > > PR and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> affected
> > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > > test
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > custom
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> simulation
> > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > > problem",
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> share
> > > some
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think
> wrapping
> > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.,
> > > 9:26
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me
> remind
> > > > you that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to
> Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > remaining tests
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> г.,
> > > > 23:48
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why
> noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> > > failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise
> some
> > > > flag,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make
> test
> > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop,
> you'll
> > > get
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve,
> isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г.
> > > 23:25
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to
> > > > check the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found
> not
> > > > equals to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018 г.
> > > в
> > > > 23:21,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution
> is
> > > > not clear
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > > expect
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> block
> > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > г.
> > > > в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in
> these
> > > > classes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> like
> > > > node stop or
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> and it
> > > > fails test
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need
> > > > no-op handler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018
> > > > г. в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if
> you
> > > > find in
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > (=NoOp), feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hello,
> > > > Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Today the
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> handler,
> > > > which
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > stops
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over
> 100
> > > > tests kept
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> you'll
> > > > found a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Nikolay,

I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
patch then let's do it.
чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>
> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>
> Sorry, one more time.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>
> > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > I'm here to blame the author.
> >
> > We can blame code but never coders.
> >
> > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
> > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Ivan.
> > >
> > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> > > ticket for further investigation).
> > >
> > > I support this idea.
> > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > >
> > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > >
> > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> > > and others).
> > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > >
> > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > >
> > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > there.
> > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > >
> > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > >
> > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > >
> > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >
> > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > no-op
> > > was
> > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> > > still, it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and
> > I'll
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> > > community,
> > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By
> > this
> > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> > > and we’re
> > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> > > have with
> > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> > > well, to
> > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > deserved to
> > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > especially
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > will
> > > join
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> > > much
> > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> > > to do
> > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op
> > or
> > > not
> > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > this.
> > > Result:
> > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > absolutely
> > > perfect
> > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> > > not, and
> > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > cases
> > > with
> > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > implementation:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or
> > grep
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> > > approach
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> > > fix
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> > > come to the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> > > suggest
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> > > make a
> > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > should
> > > (and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> > > before
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > re-checks of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > after
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > Andrew,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests
> > to
> > > double
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > together. And
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > someone
> > > else
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> > > code but
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > > critical
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> > > flaws,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> > > cleanup
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> > > made and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > will
> > > not be
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in
> > the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> > > failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid
> > of
> > > all
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> > > research a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> > > you,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > check
> > > these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > easy
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism
> > for
> > > failing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > activate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > explanation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> > > issue
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> > > merged
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > Shangareev
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> > > respell
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > failure
> > > handler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > other's
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> > > can do
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > contributed? I
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > improvements
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > please
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > please feel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > really
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> > > result? And
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> > > provide
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask
> > you
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide
> > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> > > problem
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > something,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> > > your idea.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution
> > if
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> > > later
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > option
> > > - ok
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> > > allow
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > ready to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > what
> > > was the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> > > provide
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> > > solved by
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> > > in case
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > because
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > default long
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> > > not work
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside
> > a
> > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do
> > a
> > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure
> > you
> > > have to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> > > fallback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> > > become
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > ticket
> > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> > > PR and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > test
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need
> > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > custom
> > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> > > is needed
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 12:16
> > > PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > problem",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share
> > some
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping
> > > every
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than
> > no-op
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.,
> > 9:26
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind
> > > you that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > > handler. So we
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > remaining tests
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.,
> > > 23:48
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> > failure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some
> > > flag,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test
> > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll
> > get
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г.
> > 23:25
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to
> > > check the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not
> > > equals to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.
> > в
> > > 23:21,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is
> > > not clear
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > expect
> > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block
> > > instead of
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> > г.
> > > в
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in these
> > > classes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure like
> > > node stop or
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler and it
> > > fails test
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need
> > > no-op handler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> > > г. в
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if you
> > > find in
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > (=NoOp), feel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> > > please
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today the
> > > test
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler,
> > > which
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > stops
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over 100
> > > tests kept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you'll
> > > found a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.

Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".

Sorry, one more time.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:

> I hope you've misprinted here
> > I'm here to blame the author.
>
> We can blame code but never coders.
>
> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> > Ivan.
> >
> > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> > ticket for further investigation).
> >
> > I support this idea.
> > Do we create the tickets already?
> >
> > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> >
> > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> >
> > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> > and others).
> > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> >
> > I'm here to blame the author.
> > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> >
> > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > there.
> > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > >
> > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > >
> > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > >
> > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy.
> > > >
> > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >
> > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> no-op
> > was
> > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> > still, it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > > exception
> > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and
> I'll
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > nonsense. If
> > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> > community,
> > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By
> this
> > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> > and we’re
> > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> > have with
> > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > unconditionally
> > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > absolutely
> > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> > well, to
> > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > deserved to
> > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > especially
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> will
> > join
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > contribute,- more
> > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> > much
> > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> > to do
> > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op
> or
> > not
> > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > feedback, people
> > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> this.
> > Result:
> > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> absolutely
> > perfect
> > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> > not, and
> > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > about Apache
> > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> cases
> > with
> > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > implementation:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or
> grep
> > > > > >
> > > > > > search.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> > approach
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> > fix
> > > > > >
> > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> > come to the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> > suggest
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> > make a
> > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> should
> > (and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> > before
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > re-checks of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> after
> > > > > >
> > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> Andrew,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests
> to
> > double
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > together. And
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> someone
> > else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> > code but
> > > > > >
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > critical
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > imperfect logic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> > e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> > flaws,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> > styling?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> > cleanup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> > made and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> > clean.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> will
> > not be
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in
> the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> > failure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> > using any
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid
> of
> > all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> > research a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> > you,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> check
> > these
> > > > > >
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> easy
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism
> for
> > failing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > proper
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > activate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > explanation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> > issue
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> > merged
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> Shangareev
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > No-Op for
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> > respell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> failure
> > handler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov
> <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> other's
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> > can do
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > contributed? I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> > further
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > improvements
> > > > > >
> > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> please
> > > > > >
> > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > please feel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> > thing --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > really
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> > result? And
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> > provide
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask
> you
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide
> the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> > unknown
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> > problem
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > something,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> > your idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution
> if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> Dmitrii
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> > later
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> option
> > - ok
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> > allow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > ready to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> what
> > was the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> issues
> > > > > >
> > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> > provide
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> > solved by
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> > in case
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > because
> > > > > >
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > default long
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> > previous
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > demonstrate your
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> > not work
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside
> a
> > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> Anton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do
> a
> > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> > *test even
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure
> you
> > have to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > rollback these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > handler as a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> > fallback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> > become
> > > > > >
> > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> ticket
> > (may be
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> > PR and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> test
> > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need
> to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> custom
> > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> > is needed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:16
> > PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > problem",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share
> some
> > > > > >
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping
> > every
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than
> no-op
> > > > > >
> > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.,
> 9:26
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind
> > you that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> > handler. So we
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> > remaining tests
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.,
> > 23:48
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect
> failure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some
> > flag,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test
> > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll
> get
> > > > > >
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г.
> 23:25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to
> > check the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not
> > equals to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > 23:21,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is
> > not clear
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> expect
> > the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block
> > instead of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> г.
> > в
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in these
> > classes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure like
> > node stop or
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler and it
> > fails test
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need
> > no-op handler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> > г. в
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if you
> > find in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > (=NoOp), feel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> > please
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today the
> > test
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler,
> > which
> > > > > >
> > > > > > stops
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over 100
> > tests kept
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you'll
> > found a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

I hope you've misprinted here
> I'm here to blame the author.

We can blame code but never coders.

Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:

> Ivan.
>
> > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> ticket for further investigation).
>
> I support this idea.
> Do we create the tickets already?
>
> > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
>
> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>
> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> and others).
> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>
> I'm here to blame the author.
> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>
> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > there.
> > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> >
> > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > another slightly different trick [2].
> >
> > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > ticket for further investigation).
> > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> >
> > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Dmitriy.
> > >
> > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >
> > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> was
> > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > >
> > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > >
> > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> still, it
> > > > > is
> > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > exception
> > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll
> > > > > explain
> > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> nonsense. If
> > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> community,
> > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this
> > > > > commit,
> > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> and we’re
> > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> copy-pasted,
> > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > >
> > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> have with
> > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > >
> > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> there
> > > > > are
> > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> unconditionally
> > > > > muted failures?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> absolutely
> > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> well, to
> > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> deserved to
> > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> especially
> > > > > if
> > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will
> join
> > > > > the
> > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > and
> > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> contribute,- more
> > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> much
> > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> to do
> > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or
> not
> > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> feedback, people
> > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this.
> Result:
> > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely
> perfect
> > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> not, and
> > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> about Apache
> > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases
> with
> > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> implementation:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep
> > > > >
> > > > > search.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> approach
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> fix
> > > > >
> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> come to the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > others
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> suggest
> > > > > >
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> make a
> > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should
> (and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> before
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> re-checks of
> > > > >
> > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
> > > > >
> > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to
> double
> > > > > >
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> together. And
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone
> else
> > > > >
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> code but
> > > > >
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> critical
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> imperfect logic
> > > > >
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> flaws,
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> styling?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> cleanup
> > > > >
> > > > > mess
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> made and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> clean.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will
> not be
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the
> > > > >
> > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> failure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> using any
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > >
> > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of
> all
> > > > >
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> research a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> you,
> > > > >
> > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check
> these
> > > > >
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for
> failing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> No-Op for
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> proper
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> activate
> > > > >
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> explanation
> > > > >
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> issue
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> merged
> > > > >
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> No-Op for
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> respell
> > > > >
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure
> handler
> > > > > >
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > >
> > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> can do
> > > > > >
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> contributed? I
> > > > >
> > > > > hope
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> further
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> improvements
> > > > >
> > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please
> > > > >
> > > > > justify
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> please feel
> > > > >
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > >
> > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> thing --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> really
> > > > > >
> > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> result? And
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> provide
> > > > >
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> unknown
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> problem
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> something,
> > > > >
> > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> your idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if
> > > > >
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> later
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option
> - ok
> > > > >
> > > > > for
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > >
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> allow
> > > > >
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> ready to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what
> was the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
> > > > >
> > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> provide
> > > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> solved by
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> in case
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> Dmitriy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> because
> > > > >
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> default long
> > > > > >
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> previous
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> demonstrate your
> > > > > >
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> not work
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a
> node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do a
> throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> *test even
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you
> have to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> rollback these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> handler as a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> fallback
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> become
> > > > >
> > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket
> (may be
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> PR and
> > > > >
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test
> doesn't
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
> > > > >
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom
> failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> is needed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16
> PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> problem",
> > > > >
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
> > > > >
> > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 11:37 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping
> every
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op
> > > > >
> > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26
> Dmitriy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind
> you that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful
> handler. So we
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review
> remaining tests
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.,
> 23:48
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure
> > > > >
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some
> flag,
> > > > >
> > > > > which
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test
> clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get
> > > > >
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to
> check the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not
> equals to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> 23:21,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is
> not clear
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block
> instead of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > > > >
> > > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in these
> classes
> > > > >
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure like
> node stop or
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler and it
> fails test
> > > > > >
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need
> no-op handler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018
> г. в
> > > > >
> > > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if you
> find in
> > > > >
> > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> (=NoOp), feel
> > > > >
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018 г. в
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> please
> > > > >
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018 г. в
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today the
> test
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler,
> which
> > > > >
> > > > > stops
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over 100
> tests kept
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you'll
> found a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Ivan.

> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a> ticket for further investigation).

I support this idea.
Do we create the tickets already? 

> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.

I don't agree with your term "cheap".
Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?

I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite and others).
I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.

I'm here to blame the author.
I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with NoOp handler to do the further investigation.

В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> Guys,
> 
> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> there.
> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> 
> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> another slightly different trick [2].
> 
> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> ticket for further investigation).
> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> 
> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > 
> > Dmitriy.
> > 
> > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> > 
> > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > 
> > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > 
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > 
> > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > 
> > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > What do you think?
> > > 
> > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > 
> > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it
> > > > is
> > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > exception
> > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > 
> > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll
> > > > explain
> > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If
> > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community,
> > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
> > > > 
> > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this
> > > > commit,
> > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re
> > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted,
> > > > aren’t we?
> > > > 
> > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with
> > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > 
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > 
> > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there
> > > > are
> > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally
> > > > muted failures?
> > > > 
> > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely
> > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > 
> > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to
> > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to
> > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially
> > > > if
> > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > 
> > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join
> > > > the
> > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style,
> > > > and
> > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more
> > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much
> > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do
> > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not
> > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > 
> > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people
> > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result:
> > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect
> > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and
> > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
> > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
> > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep
> > > > 
> > > > search.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > 
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix
> > > > 
> > > > itself,
> > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the
> > > > > 
> > > > > list
> > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to
> > > > 
> > > > others
> > > > > to
> > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest
> > > > > 
> > > > > help
> > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
> > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and
> > > > > 
> > > > > should
> > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before
> > > > 
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of
> > > > 
> > > > tests.
> > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
> > > > 
> > > > revisiting
> > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
> > > > 
> > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double
> > > > > 
> > > > > check
> > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And
> > > > > 
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else
> > > > 
> > > > to do
> > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but
> > > > 
> > > > has
> > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic
> > > > 
> > > > of
> > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g.
> > > > 
> > > > using
> > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws,
> > > > 
> > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup
> > > > 
> > > > mess
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and
> > > > > 
> > > > > review
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the
> > > > 
> > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure
> > > > > 
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > 
> > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all
> > > > 
> > > > no-op
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you,
> > > > 
> > > > aren't
> > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these
> > > > 
> > > > test
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to
> > > > 
> > > > locate
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to
> > > > > 
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally activate
> > > > 
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation
> > > > 
> > > > why
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue
> > > > 
> > > > and
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged
> > > > 
> > > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell
> > > > 
> > > > a
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler
> > > > > 
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > 
> > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do
> > > > > 
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I
> > > > 
> > > > hope
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements
> > > > 
> > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please
> > > > 
> > > > justify
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel
> > > > 
> > > > free
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > 
> > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really
> > > > > 
> > > > > important.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And
> > > > > 
> > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide
> > > > 
> > > > PR
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to
> > > > 
> > > > explain
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> > > > > 
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
> > > > > 
> > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something,
> > > > 
> > > > but to
> > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > 
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if
> > > > 
> > > > someone
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later
> > > > 
> > > > and
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok
> > > > 
> > > > for
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > 
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow
> > > > 
> > > > tests
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to
> > > > > 
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
> > > > 
> > > > instead of
> > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide
> > > > 
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because
> > > > 
> > > > changes
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long
> > > > > 
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
> > > > > 
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> > > > > 
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become
> > > > 
> > > > failed
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and
> > > > 
> > > > some
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
> > > > 
> > > > fallback
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed
> > > > > 
> > > > > (to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM
> > > > 
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem",
> > > > 
> > > > so,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
> > > > 
> > > > examples
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op
> > > > 
> > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests
> > > > 
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48
> > > > 
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure
> > > > 
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag,
> > > > 
> > > > which
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get
> > > > 
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
> > > > > 
> > > > > пользователь
> > > > > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the
> > > > > 
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the
> > > > > 
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > 
> > > > 21:41,
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests in these classes
> > > > 
> > > > check
> > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure like node stop or
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler and it fails test
> > > > > 
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why we need no-op handler
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > 
> > > > 20:06,
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if you find in
> > > > 
> > > > any of
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler (=NoOp), feel
> > > > 
> > > > free
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > 
> > > > > 20:02,
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > > > 
> > > > explain
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today the test
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > framework's
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler, which
> > > > 
> > > > stops
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over 100 tests kept
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you'll found a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Guys,

I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
there.
2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.

Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
another slightly different trick [2].

Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
ticket for further investigation).
2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.

One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
it is good if the system "can make a progress".

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> Dmitriy.
>
> > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>
> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> >
> > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> >
> >
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it
> >> is
> >> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> >> exception
> >> handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> >>
> >> This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll
> >> explain
> >> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If
> >> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community,
> >> we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
> >>
> >> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this
> >> commit,
> >> we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re
> >> still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted,
> >> aren’t we?
> >>
> >> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with
> >> no-op: please visit this page
> >>
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> >>
> >> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there
> >> are
> >> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally
> >> muted failures?
> >>
> >> Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely
> >> positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> >>
> >> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to
> >> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to
> >> read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially
> >> if
> >> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> >>
> >> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join
> >> the
> >> process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style,
> >> and
> >> some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more
> >> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much
> >> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do
> >> deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not
> >> without deep analysis?
> >>
> >> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people
> >> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> >> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result:
> >> some of us knew it only now.
> >>
> >> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect
> >> code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and
> >> you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> >>
> >>
> >> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > Dmitriy.
> >> >
> >> > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
> >> > Way all the time :)
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> >> > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
> >> > NoOpHandler.
> >> > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:
> >> >
> >> > 1. No copy paste code
> >> > 2. Reduce changes.
> >> > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep
> >> search.
> >> >
> >> > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach
> >> [1]
> >> > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >> >
> >> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix
> >> itself,
> >> > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the
> >> > list
> >> > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to
> >> others
> >> > to
> >> > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> >> > >
> >> > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest
> >> > help
> >> > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
> >> > > decision.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and
> >> > should
> >> > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before
> >> Dmitriy
> >> > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of
> >> tests.
> >> > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
> >> revisiting
> >> > > no-op test list.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
> >> Dmitrii &
> >> > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double
> >> > check
> >> > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And
> >> > this
> >> > > is how a community works.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else
> >> to do
> >> > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but
> >> has
> >> > > other goals.
> >> > >
> >> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> >> > > failure
> >> > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic
> >> of
> >> > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g.
> >> using
> >> > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws,
> >> IMO.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> >> > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup
> >> mess
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> >> > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and
> >> > review
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > cleanup patch.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> >> > > > provided.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> >> > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> >> > > > > > >> in a single fix?
> >> > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> >> > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the
> >> future.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Dmitry,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure
> >> > handler
> >> > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> >> > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> >> > > > > meaningful
> >> > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> >> av@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all
> >> no-op
> >> > or
> >> > > > > > explain
> >> > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> >> > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
> >> > > couple
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > > these
> >> > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you,
> >> aren't
> >> > > you?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these
> >> test
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > keep
> >> > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to
> >> locate
> >> > > > these
> >> > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
> >> > > tests.
> >> > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > Ok
> >> > > > > > > > > for you?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >> >:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> >> > > > several
> >> > > > > > > tests?
> >> > > > > > > > > Why
> >> > > > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> >> > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
> >> > > explanation
> >> > > > > why
> >> > > > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to
> >> > demonstrate
> >> > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > better
> >> > > > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate
> >> failure
> >> > > > > handler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation
> >> why
> >> > > tests
> >> > > > > > fail
> >> > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> >> > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue
> >> and
> >> > > make
> >> > > > > > > > everything
> >> > > > > > > > > > properly.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> >> > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> >> > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged
> >> we
> >> > > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > able
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> >> > > several
> >> > > > > > > tests?
> >> > > > > > > > > Why
> >> > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> >> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell
> >> a
> >> > > name
> >> > > > > > > "massive
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler
> >> > only
> >> > > > > where
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> >> perfectly ok
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > failures
> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> >> > > contributions
> >> > > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do
> >> > things
> >> > > > > better
> >> > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I
> >> hope
> >> > -
> >> > > > no.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> >> > > > > > improvements.
> >> > > > > > > > And
> >> > > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements
> >> later.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please
> >> justify
> >> > > your
> >> > > > > > > intent.
> >> > > > > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel
> >> free
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > convince
> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> >> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> >> aforementioned
> >> > > > patch
> >> > > > > > > made
> >> > > > > > > > > > really
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> >> > > > meaningful
> >> > > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really
> >> > important.
> >> > > > But
> >> > > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And
> >> > why?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> >> > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide
> >> PR
> >> > or
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > fix
> >> > > > > > > > > these
> >> > > > > > > > > > > test
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to
> >> explain
> >> > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > problems
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> >> > explanation
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > rollback
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> >> > > > problems.
> >> > > > > > At
> >> > > > > > > > > least,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
> >> > we're
> >> > > > > > fixing
> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > each
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something,
> >> but to
> >> > > > > prevent
> >> > > > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea.
> >> > Code
> >> > > > > speaks
> >> > > > > > > > > louder
> >> > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if
> >> someone
> >> > has
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > > > idea,
> >> > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> >> > > contribution,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > initial
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later
> >> and
> >> > you
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok
> >> for
> >> > me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> >> Vinogradov <
> >> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow
> >> tests
> >> > to
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > successful
> >> > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to
> >> > provide
> >> > > > > > > arguments
> >> > > > > > > > > why
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> >> > > > problem,
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
> >> instead of
> >> > > > fix.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide
> >> the
> >> > > > > > > > explanation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
> >> > > no-op
> >> > > > > > > handler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> >> > > > arguments
> >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy
> >> > Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because
> >> changes
> >> > > make
> >> > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > better.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long
> >> > time
> >> > > > > ago.
> >> > > > > > > > Please
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
> >> > > commit.
> >> > > > > New
> >> > > > > > > > commit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
> >> > idea
> >> > > > how
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > transfer
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
> >> > > because
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > fail
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> >> > Vinogradov
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> >> > > > *worse*.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
> >> > > check
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
> >> > > changes
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> >> > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
> >> > > default
> >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > looks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback
> >> to
> >> > > noop
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > 100+
> >> > > > > > > > > > test?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become
> >> failed
> >> > > > after
> >> > > > > > > > changing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> >> > > > > umbrella)
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and
> >> some
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > them
> >> > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> >> > > > expects
> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
> >> fallback
> >> > to
> >> > > > > noop.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> >> > > > handler
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > detect
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed
> >> > (to
> >> > > > keep
> >> > > > > > > > hanged
> >> > > > > > > > > > grid
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > under
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM
> >> Anton
> >> > > > > > Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem",
> >> so,
> >> > we
> >> > > > lose
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
> >> examples
> >> > > > where
> >> > > > > > > > "no-op"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > better
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM
> >> > Dmitrii
> >> > > > > > Ryabov
> >> > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> >> > > > > disconnecting
> >> > > > > > > > node
> >> > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op
> >> handler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
> >> > > Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that
> >> > Dmitry
> >> > > > > > changed
> >> > > > > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > start
> >> > > > > > > > > every
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > message
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests
> >> and
> >> > > > > remove
> >> > > > > > > noop
> >> > > > > > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48
> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure
> >> handler
> >> > > > should
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag,
> >> which
> >> > can
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > checked
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get
> >> previous
> >> > > > > unwanted
> >> > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
> >> > пользователь
> >> > > > > > "Anton
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the
> >> > reason
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > inside
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> >> > > > expected
> >> > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > test
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21,
> >> > Anton
> >> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear
> >> to
> >> > > me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the
> >> > failure
> >> > > > > then a
> >> > > > > > > > > correct
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
> >> > > no-op
> >> > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> 21:41,
> >> > > > Dmitrii
> >> > > > > > > > Ryabov
> >> > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes
> >> check
> >> > > > fail
> >> > > > > > > cases
> >> > > > > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> >> > > > > exception
> >> > > > > > > > > thrown.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Such
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test
> >> > when
> >> > > > > > > > everything
> >> > > > > > > > > > goes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> 20:06,
> >> > > > > Dmitriy
> >> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in
> >> any of
> >> > > > your
> >> > > > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel
> >> free
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > remove
> >> > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> > 20:02,
> >> > > > > Anton
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please
> >> explain
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > reason
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> > > 19:12,
> >> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test
> >> > > framework's
> >> > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which
> >> stops
> >> > the
> >> > > > > node
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > fails
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept
> >> > > no-op
> >> > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> `getFailureHandler()`
> >> > > > > method.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a
> >> > > problem
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > something
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy.

> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
copy-pasted, aren’t we?

Can you explain this idea a bit more?
I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:

> > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
>
> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> What do you think?
>
> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>
>
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it
>> is
>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
>> exception
>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
>>
>> This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll
>> explain
>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If
>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community,
>> we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
>>
>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this
>> commit,
>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re
>> still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted,
>> aren’t we?
>>
>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with
>> no-op: please visit this page
>>
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>>
>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there
>> are
>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally
>> muted failures?
>>
>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely
>> positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
>>
>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to
>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to
>> read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially
>> if
>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
>>
>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join
>> the
>> process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style,
>> and
>> some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more
>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much
>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do
>> deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not
>> without deep analysis?
>>
>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people
>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result:
>> some of us knew it only now.
>>
>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect
>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and
>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
>>
>>
>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Dmitriy.
>> >
>> > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
>> > Way all the time :)
>> >
>> > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
>> > NoOpHandler.
>> > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:
>> >
>> > 1. No copy paste code
>> > 2. Reduce changes.
>> > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep
>> search.
>> >
>> > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach
>> [1]
>> > I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> >
>> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix
>> itself,
>> > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the
>> > list
>> > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to
>> others
>> > to
>> > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
>> > >
>> > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest
>> > help
>> > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
>> > > decision.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and
>> > should
>> > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before
>> Dmitriy
>> > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of
>> tests.
>> > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
>> revisiting
>> > > no-op test list.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
>> Dmitrii &
>> > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double
>> > check
>> > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And
>> > this
>> > > is how a community works.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else
>> to do
>> > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but
>> has
>> > > other goals.
>> > >
>> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
>> > > >
>> > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
>> > > failure
>> > > > like node stop or exception thrown
>> > > >
>> > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic
>> of
>> > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g.
>> using
>> > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws,
>> IMO.
>> > > >
>> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup
>> mess
>> > > that
>> > > > > patches brings to the code base.
>> > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and
>> > review
>> > > > this
>> > > > > cleanup patch.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
>> > > > provided.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> > > > > [2]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
>> > > > > > >> in a single fix?
>> > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
>> > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the
>> future.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Dmitry,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure
>> > handler
>> > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
>> > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
>> > > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
>> av@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all
>> no-op
>> > or
>> > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
>> > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
>> > > couple
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you,
>> aren't
>> > > you?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these
>> test
>> > > to
>> > > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to
>> locate
>> > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
>> > > tests.
>> > > > > Is
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > Ok
>> > > > > > > > > for you?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
>> > > > several
>> > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
>> > > explanation
>> > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to
>> > demonstrate
>> > > > any
>> > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate
>> failure
>> > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation
>> why
>> > > tests
>> > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue
>> and
>> > > make
>> > > > > > > > everything
>> > > > > > > > > > properly.
>> > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
>> > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
>> > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged
>> we
>> > > will
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > able
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
>> > > several
>> > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell
>> a
>> > > name
>> > > > > > > "massive
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler
>> > only
>> > > > > where
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
>> perfectly ok
>> > > to
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > failures
>> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
>> > > contributions
>> > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do
>> > things
>> > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I
>> hope
>> > -
>> > > > no.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
>> > > > > > improvements.
>> > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements
>> later.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please
>> justify
>> > > your
>> > > > > > > intent.
>> > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel
>> free
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > convince
>> > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
>> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
>> aforementioned
>> > > > patch
>> > > > > > > made
>> > > > > > > > > > really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
>> > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really
>> > important.
>> > > > But
>> > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And
>> > why?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide
>> PR
>> > or
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to
>> explain
>> > > > what
>> > > > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
>> > explanation
>> > > I
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > rollback
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
>> > > > problems.
>> > > > > > At
>> > > > > > > > > least,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
>> > we're
>> > > > > > fixing
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > each
>> > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something,
>> but to
>> > > > > prevent
>> > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
>> <
>> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea.
>> > Code
>> > > > > speaks
>> > > > > > > > > louder
>> > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if
>> someone
>> > has
>> > > > an
>> > > > > > > idea,
>> > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
>> > > contribution,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > initial
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later
>> and
>> > you
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok
>> for
>> > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
>> Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow
>> tests
>> > to
>> > > be
>> > > > > > > > > successful
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to
>> > provide
>> > > > > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
>> > > > problem,
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
>> instead of
>> > > > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide
>> the
>> > > > > > > > explanation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
>> > > no-op
>> > > > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
>> > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy
>> > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because
>> changes
>> > > make
>> > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > better.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long
>> > time
>> > > > > ago.
>> > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
>> > > commit.
>> > > > > New
>> > > > > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
>> > idea
>> > > > how
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > transfer
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
>> > > because
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
>> > Vinogradov
>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
>> > > > *worse*.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
>> > > check
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > expectation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
>> > > changes
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
>> > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
>> > > default
>> > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > looks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback
>> to
>> > > noop
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > 100+
>> > > > > > > > > > test?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become
>> failed
>> > > > after
>> > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
>> > > > > umbrella)
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and
>> some
>> > > of
>> > > > > them
>> > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
>> > > > expects
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > critical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
>> fallback
>> > to
>> > > > > noop.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
>> > > > handler
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > detect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > expected
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed
>> > (to
>> > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > hanged
>> > > > > > > > > > grid
>> > > > > > > > > > > > under
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM
>> Anton
>> > > > > > Vinogradov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem",
>> so,
>> > we
>> > > > lose
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
>> examples
>> > > > where
>> > > > > > > > "no-op"
>> > > > > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM
>> > Dmitrii
>> > > > > > Ryabov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
>> > > > > disconnecting
>> > > > > > > > node
>> > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op
>> handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
>> > > Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that
>> > Dmitry
>> > > > > > changed
>> > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
>> > > should
>> > > > > > start
>> > > > > > > > > every
>> > > > > > > > > > > > message
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests
>> and
>> > > > > remove
>> > > > > > > noop
>> > > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48
>> Andrey
>> > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure
>> handler
>> > > > should
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag,
>> which
>> > can
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > checked
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get
>> previous
>> > > > > unwanted
>> > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
>> > пользователь
>> > > > > > "Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the
>> > reason
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
>> > > > expected
>> > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21,
>> > Anton
>> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
>> > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear
>> to
>> > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the
>> > failure
>> > > > > then a
>> > > > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
>> > > no-op
>> > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 21:41,
>> > > > Dmitrii
>> > > > > > > > Ryabov
>> > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes
>> check
>> > > > fail
>> > > > > > > cases
>> > > > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
>> > > > > exception
>> > > > > > > > > thrown.
>> > > > > > > > > > > Such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test
>> > when
>> > > > > > > > everything
>> > > > > > > > > > goes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > as it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler
>> > > here.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 20:06,
>> > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in
>> any of
>> > > > your
>> > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > does't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel
>> free
>> > > to
>> > > > > > remove
>> > > > > > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
>> > 20:02,
>> > > > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please
>> explain
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > reason
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
>> > > 19:12,
>> > > > > > > Dmitrii
>> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test
>> > > framework's
>> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which
>> stops
>> > the
>> > > > > node
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > fails
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept
>> > > no-op
>> > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> `getFailureHandler()`
>> > > > > method.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a
>> > > problem
>> > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > something
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.

I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
What do you think?

Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?



ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:

> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it is
> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better exception
> handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
>
> This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll explain
> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If
> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community,
> we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
>
> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this commit,
> we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re
> still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted,
> aren’t we?
>
> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with
> no-op: please visit this page
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>
> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there are
> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally
> muted failures?
>
> Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely
> positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
>
> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to
> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to
> read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially if
> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
>
> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join the
> process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, and
> some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more
> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much
> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do
> deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not
> without deep analysis?
>
> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people
> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result:
> some of us knew it only now.
>
> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect
> code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and
> you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
>
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitriy.
> >
> > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
> > Way all the time :)
> >
> > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
> > NoOpHandler.
> > This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:
> >
> > 1. No copy paste code
> > 2. Reduce changes.
> > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search.
> >
> > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach
> [1]
> > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix
> itself,
> > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the
> > list
> > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others
> > to
> > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > >
> > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest
> > help
> > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
> > > decision.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and
> > should
> > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before
> Dmitriy
> > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of
> tests.
> > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
> revisiting
> > > no-op test list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
> Dmitrii &
> > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double
> > check
> > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And
> > this
> > > is how a community works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to
> do
> > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but
> has
> > > other goals.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > >
> > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > failure
> > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > >
> > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic
> of
> > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g.
> using
> > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws,
> IMO.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> > > > >
> > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess
> > > that
> > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > >
> > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and
> > review
> > > > this
> > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > >
> > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > > provided.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > >> in a single fix?
> > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure
> > handler
> > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all
> no-op
> > or
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
> > > couple
> > > > of
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you,
> aren't
> > > you?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these
> test
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to
> locate
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
> > > tests.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > > > several
> > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
> > > explanation
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to
> > demonstrate
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate
> failure
> > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why
> > > tests
> > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and
> > > make
> > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > > several
> > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a
> > > name
> > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler
> > only
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly
> ok
> > > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> > > contributions
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do
> > things
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I
> hope
> > -
> > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify
> > > your
> > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel
> free
> > > to
> > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> aforementioned
> > > > patch
> > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really
> > important.
> > > > But
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And
> > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide
> PR
> > or
> > > > to
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to
> explain
> > > > what
> > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> > explanation
> > > I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> > > > problems.
> > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
> > we're
> > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but
> to
> > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea.
> > Code
> > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone
> > has
> > > > an
> > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> > > contribution,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and
> > you
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for
> > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to
> > provide
> > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> > > > problem,
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead
> of
> > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide
> the
> > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > arguments
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because
> changes
> > > make
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long
> > time
> > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
> > > commit.
> > > > > New
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
> > idea
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
> > > because
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
> > > check
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
> > > changes
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
> > > default
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to
> > > noop
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become
> failed
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and
> some
> > > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> > > > expects
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
> fallback
> > to
> > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed
> > (to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so,
> > we
> > > > lose
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
> examples
> > > > where
> > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> > > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that
> > Dmitry
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
> > > should
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests
> and
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get
> previous
> > > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
> > пользователь
> > > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the
> > reason
> > > of
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> > > > expected
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear
> to
> > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the
> > failure
> > > > > then a
> > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41,
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes
> check
> > > > fail
> > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test
> > when
> > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> 20:06,
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any
> of
> > > > your
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel
> free
> > > to
> > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 20:02,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please
> explain
> > > the
> > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test
> > > framework's
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops
> > the
> > > > > node
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a
> > > problem
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But still, it is
not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better exception
handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.

This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll explain
why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this nonsense. If
PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the community,
we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.

The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this commit,
we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests, and we’re
still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was copy-pasted,
aren’t we?

To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to have with
no-op: please visit this page
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__

It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why there are
no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely unconditionally
muted failures?

Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting absolutely
positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?

Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as well, to
locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he deserved to
read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no, especially if
the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.

This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will join the
process or not. People may be not happy with some decisions/code/style, and
some people are more often unhappy than others. More you contribute,- more
you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too much
about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need to do
deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or not
without deep analysis?

Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative feedback, people
will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this. Result:
some of us knew it only now.

Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely perfect
code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe not, and
you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.


ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy.
>
> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
> Way all the time :)
>
> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
> NoOpHandler.
> This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:
>
> 1. No copy paste code
> 2. Reduce changes.
> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search.
>
> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach [1]
> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
> > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself,
> > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the
> list
> > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others
> to
> > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> >
> > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest
> help
> > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
> > decision.
> >
> >
> >
> > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and
> should
> > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy
> > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests.
> > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting
> > no-op test list.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,  Dmitrii &
> > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double
> check
> > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And
> this
> > is how a community works.
> >
> >
> >
> > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do
> > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has
> > other goals.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > >
> > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > failure
> > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > >
> > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of
> > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using
> > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > >
> > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> > > >
> > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess
> > that
> > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > >
> > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and
> review
> > > this
> > > > cleanup patch.
> > > >
> > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > >
> > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > >
> > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> > > >
> > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > provided.
> > > >
> > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > >> in a single fix?
> > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure
> handler
> > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> > > > meaningful
> > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op
> or
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
> > couple
> > > of
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't
> > you?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate
> > > these
> > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
> > tests.
> > > > Is
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > > several
> > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
> > explanation
> > > > why
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to
> demonstrate
> > > any
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure
> > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why
> > tests
> > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and
> > make
> > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > several
> > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a
> > name
> > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler
> only
> > > > where
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> > contributions
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do
> things
> > > > better
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope
> -
> > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify
> > your
> > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free
> > to
> > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned
> > > patch
> > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> > > meaningful
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really
> important.
> > > But
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And
> why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR
> or
> > > to
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain
> > > what
> > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> explanation
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> > > problems.
> > > > > At
> > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem
> we're
> > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to
> > > > prevent
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea.
> Code
> > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone
> has
> > > an
> > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> > contribution,
> > > > but
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and
> you
> > > > will
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for
> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests
> to
> > be
> > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to
> provide
> > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> > > problem,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of
> > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
> > no-op
> > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > arguments
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes
> > make
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long
> time
> > > > ago.
> > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
> > commit.
> > > > New
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your
> idea
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
> > check
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
> > changes
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
> > default
> > > > one
> > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to
> > noop
> > > > for
> > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed
> > > after
> > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> > > > umbrella)
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some
> > of
> > > > them
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> > > expects
> > > > if
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback
> to
> > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> > > handler
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed
> (to
> > > keep
> > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so,
> we
> > > lose
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples
> > > where
> > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM
> Dmitrii
> > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> > > > disconnecting
> > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that
> Dmitry
> > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
> > should
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and
> > > > remove
> > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous
> > > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25
> пользователь
> > > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the
> reason
> > of
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> > > expected
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21,
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to
> > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the
> failure
> > > > then a
> > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
> > no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41,
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check
> > > fail
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> > > > exception
> > > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test
> when
> > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler
> > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06,
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of
> > > your
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free
> > to
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> 20:02,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain
> > the
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 19:12,
> > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test
> > framework's
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops
> the
> > > > node
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept
> > no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a
> > problem
> > > or
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy.

I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking about Apache
Way all the time :)

Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases with
NoOpHandler.
This has several advantages, comparing with current implementation:

1. No copy paste code
2. Reduce changes.
3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep search.

I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my approach [1]
I can go further and prepare full fix.

What do you think?

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:

> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself,
> but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the list
> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others to
> rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
>
> If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest help
> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
> decision.
>
>
>
> And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and should
> not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy
> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests.
> Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting
> no-op test list.
>
>
>
> We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,  Dmitrii &
> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double check
> for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And this
> is how a community works.
>
>
>
> If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do
> all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has
> other goals.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
>
> > As I can see from the above discussion,
> >
> > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> failure
> > like node stop or exception thrown
> >
> > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of
> > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using
> > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > >
> > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > >
> > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> > >
> > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess
> that
> > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > >
> > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review
> > this
> > > cleanup patch.
> > >
> > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > >
> > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > >
> > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> > >
> > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > provided.
> > >
> > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > >> in a single fix?
> > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> > > meaningful
> > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or
> > > > explain
> > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a
> couple
> > of
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't
> you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test
> to
> > > keep
> > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate
> > these
> > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing
> tests.
> > > Is
> > > > it
> > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> > several
> > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper
> explanation
> > > why
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate
> > any
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure
> > > handler.
> > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why
> tests
> > > > fail
> > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and
> make
> > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we
> will
> > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> several
> > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a
> name
> > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only
> > > where
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok
> to
> > > have
> > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> contributions
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things
> > > better
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope -
> > no.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > > > improvements.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify
> your
> > > > > intent.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free
> to
> > > > > convince
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned
> > patch
> > > > > made
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> > meaningful
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important.
> > But
> > > > was
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or
> > to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain
> > what
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation
> I
> > > will
> > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> > problems.
> > > > At
> > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're
> > > > fixing
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to
> > > prevent
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code
> > > speaks
> > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has
> > an
> > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> contribution,
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you
> > > will
> > > > > set
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to
> be
> > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide
> > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> > problem,
> > > > in
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of
> > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by
> no-op
> > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > arguments
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes
> make
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time
> > > ago.
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous
> commit.
> > > New
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea
> > how
> > > to
> > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work
> because
> > > the
> > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to
> check
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these
> changes
> > > and
> > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a
> default
> > > one
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to
> noop
> > > for
> > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed
> > after
> > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> > > umbrella)
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some
> of
> > > them
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> > expects
> > > if
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to
> > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> > handler
> > > to
> > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to
> > keep
> > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we
> > lose
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples
> > where
> > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> > > disconnecting
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry
> > > > changed
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we
> should
> > > > start
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and
> > > remove
> > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can
> > be
> > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous
> > > unwanted
> > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь
> > > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason
> of
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> > expected
> > > > then
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to
> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure
> > > then a
> > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of
> no-op
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41,
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check
> > fail
> > > > > cases
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> > > exception
> > > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler
> here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06,
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of
> > your
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free
> to
> > > > remove
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain
> the
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в
> 19:12,
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test
> framework's
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the
> > > node
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept
> no-op
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a
> problem
> > or
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to fix itself,
but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just come to the list
and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say to others to
rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.

If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she suggest help
(or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can make a
decision.



And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should (and should
not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it before Dmitriy
R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after re-checks of tests.
Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after revisiting
no-op test list.



We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,  Dmitrii &
Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to double check
for each contributor. We can make things better if we go together. And this
is how a community works.



If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone else to do
all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project code but has
other goals.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:

> As I can see from the above discussion,
>
> >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical failure
> like node stop or exception thrown
>
> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of
> existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using
> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> >
> > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> >
> > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
> >
> > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that
> > patches brings to the code base.
> > Example of cleanup [2]
> >
> > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review
> this
> > cleanup patch.
> >
> > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> >
> > > I really like your perfectionism
> >
> > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
> >
> > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> provided.
> >
> > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> > > >> in a single fix?
> > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> > meaningful
> > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or
> > > explain
> > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple
> of
> > > > these
> > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to
> > keep
> > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate
> these
> > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests.
> > Is
> > > it
> > > > > Ok
> > > > > > for you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for
> several
> > > > tests?
> > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation
> > why
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate
> any
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure
> > handler.
> > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests
> > > fail
> > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> > > > > everything
> > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will
> be
> > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > > > tests?
> > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name
> > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only
> > where
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to
> > have
> > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions
> > > > because
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things
> > better
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope -
> no.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > > improvements.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your
> > > > intent.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to
> > > > convince
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned
> patch
> > > > made
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing --
> meaningful
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important.
> But
> > > was
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or
> to
> > > fix
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain
> what
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I
> > will
> > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown
> problems.
> > > At
> > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're
> > > fixing
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to
> > prevent
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code
> > speaks
> > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has
> an
> > > > idea,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you
> > will
> > > > set
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide
> > > > arguments
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the
> problem,
> > > in
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of
> fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op
> > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> arguments
> > > > will
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make
> > > tests
> > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time
> > ago.
> > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit.
> > New
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea
> how
> > to
> > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because
> > the
> > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even
> *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check
> > this
> > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes
> > and
> > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default
> > one
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop
> > for
> > > > 100+
> > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed
> after
> > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> > umbrella)
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of
> > them
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't
> expects
> > if
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to
> > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure
> handler
> > to
> > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to
> keep
> > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we
> lose
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples
> where
> > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> > disconnecting
> > > > > node
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry
> > > changed
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should
> > > start
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and
> > remove
> > > > noop
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler
> should
> > be
> > > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can
> be
> > > > > checked
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous
> > unwanted
> > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь
> > > "Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to
> expected
> > > then
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure
> > then a
> > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41,
> Dmitrii
> > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check
> fail
> > > > cases
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> > exception
> > > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> > > > > everything
> > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06,
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of
> your
> > > > tests
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to
> > > remove
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the
> > > > reason
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12,
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's
> > > > default
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the
> > node
> > > > and
> > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem
> or
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>]

As I can see from the above discussion,

>  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical failure
like node stop or exception thrown

So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the imperfect logic of
existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way, e.g. using
custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing flaws, IMO.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>
> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
>
> Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?
>
> Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that
> patches brings to the code base.
> Example of cleanup [2]
>
> It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review this
> cleanup patch.
>
> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
>
> > I really like your perfectionism
>
> It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.
>
> > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.
>
> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > >> But why should we make all things perfect
> > >> in a single fix?
> > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> > > fallbacks were added?
> > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any
> meaningful
> > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or
> > explain
> > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of
> > > these
> > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> > > > >
> > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to
> keep
> > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > >
> > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests.
> Is
> > it
> > > > Ok
> > > > > for you?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > > tests?
> > > > > Why
> > > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation
> why
> > > > tests
> > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any
> > > > better
> > > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure
> handler.
> > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests
> > fail
> > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> > > > everything
> > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > > tests?
> > > > > Why
> > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name
> > > "massive
> > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only
> where
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to
> have
> > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions
> > > because
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things
> better
> > > > than
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> > improvements.
> > > > And
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your
> > > intent.
> > > > If
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to
> > > convince
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch
> > > made
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But
> > was
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to
> > fix
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what
> > > > problems
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I
> will
> > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems.
> > At
> > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're
> > fixing
> > > > for
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to
> prevent
> > > > merge
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code
> speaks
> > > > > louder
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an
> > > idea,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution,
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you
> will
> > > set
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > > > > successful
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide
> > > arguments
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem,
> > in
> > > > case
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op
> > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > > will
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make
> > tests
> > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time
> ago.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit.
> New
> > > > commit
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how
> to
> > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because
> the
> > > fail
> > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check
> this
> > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes
> and
> > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default
> one
> > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop
> for
> > > 100+
> > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after
> > > > changing
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be
> umbrella)
> > to
> > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of
> them
> > > are
> > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects
> if
> > > any
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to
> noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler
> to
> > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep
> > > > hanged
> > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose
> > the
> > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where
> > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii
> > Ryabov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every
> disconnecting
> > > > node
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry
> > changed
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should
> > start
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and
> remove
> > > noop
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should
> be
> > > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be
> > > > checked
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous
> unwanted
> > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь
> > "Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of
> > > failure
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected
> > then
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure
> then a
> > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail
> > > cases
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or
> exception
> > > > > thrown.
> > > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> > > > everything
> > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06,
> Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your
> > > tests
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to
> > remove
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02,
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the
> > > reason
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12,
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's
> > > default
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the
> node
> > > and
> > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()`
> method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>]

Hello, Igniters.

I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.

I think we should avoid commits like [1]
Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.

Don't we have another option to do same fix with better styling?

Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to cleanup mess that
patches brings to the code base.
Example of cleanup [2]

It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to made and review this
cleanup patch.

We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".

> I really like your perfectionism

It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base clean.

> And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.

+1 to rollback and rework this commit.
At least, we should reduce copy paste code.

[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
[2]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Andrey,
>
> >> But why should we make all things perfect
> >> in a single fix?
> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> > fallbacks were added?
> > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful
> > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or
> explain
> > > why it's a better choice).
> > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of
> > these
> > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> > > >
> > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > > > overridden method now.
> > > >
> > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is
> it
> > > Ok
> > > > for you?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > tests?
> > > > Why
> > > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why
> > > tests
> > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any
> > > better
> > > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> > > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests
> fail
> > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> > > everything
> > > > > properly.
> > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> > tests?
> > > > Why
> > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name
> > "massive
> > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions
> > because
> > > > you
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better
> > > than
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further
> improvements.
> > > And
> > > > I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your
> > intent.
> > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to
> > convince
> > > > me
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch
> > made
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful
> > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But
> was
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to
> fix
> > > > these
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what
> > > problems
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems.
> At
> > > > least,
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're
> fixing
> > > for
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent
> > > merge
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks
> > > > louder
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an
> > idea,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but
> > the
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will
> > set
> > > > new
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > > > successful
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide
> > arguments
> > > > why
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem,
> in
> > > case
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op
> > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make
> tests
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago.
> > > Please
> > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New
> > > commit
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the
> > fail
> > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and
> > > > replace
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one
> > > looks
> > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for
> > 100+
> > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after
> > > changing
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella)
> to
> > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them
> > are
> > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if
> > any
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to
> > > > detect
> > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep
> > > hanged
> > > > > grid
> > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose
> the
> > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where
> > > "no-op"
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii
> Ryabov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting
> > > node
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry
> changed
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should
> start
> > > > every
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove
> > noop
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be
> > > checked
> > > > in
> > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь
> "Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of
> > failure
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected
> then
> > > > test
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a
> > > > correct
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op
> > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail
> > cases
> > > > when
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception
> > > > thrown.
> > > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> > > everything
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your
> > tests
> > > it
> > > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to
> remove
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the
> > reason
> > > of
> > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12,
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's
> > default
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node
> > and
> > > > > fails
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op
> > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

>> But why should we make all things perfect
>> in a single fix?
As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the future.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dmitry,
>
> Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
> fallbacks were added?
> Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful
> failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain
> > why it's a better choice).
> > Explicit confirmation required.
> >
> > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of
> these
> > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> > >
> > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > > overridden method now.
> > >
> > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it
> > Ok
> > > for you?
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> tests?
> > > Why
> > > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why
> > tests
> > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > >
> > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > >
> > > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any
> > better
> > > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> > > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
> > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> > everything
> > > > properly.
> > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be
> able
> > to
> > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several
> tests?
> > > Why
> > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name
> "massive
> > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where
> it
> > is
> > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> > > > failures
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions
> because
> > > you
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better
> > than
> > > > me.
> > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements.
> > And
> > > I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your
> intent.
> > If
> > > > you
> > > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to
> convince
> > > me
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch
> made
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful
> > failure
> > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix
> > > these
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what
> > problems
> > > > the
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At
> > > least,
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing
> > for
> > > > each
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent
> > merge
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks
> > > louder
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an
> idea,
> > > > which
> > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but
> the
> > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will
> set
> > > new
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > > successful
> > > > in
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide
> arguments
> > > why
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in
> > case
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op
> handler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> will
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests
> > > > better.
> > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago.
> > Please
> > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New
> > commit
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> > > > transfer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the
> fail
> > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and
> > > replace
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one
> > looks
> > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for
> 100+
> > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after
> > changing
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them
> are
> > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if
> any
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to
> > > detect
> > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep
> > hanged
> > > > grid
> > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where
> > "no-op"
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting
> > node
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed
> > > > default
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start
> > > every
> > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove
> noop
> > > > where
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > > > > triggered,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be
> > checked
> > > in
> > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of
> failure
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then
> > > test
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a
> > > correct
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op
> failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> > Ryabov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail
> cases
> > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception
> > > thrown.
> > > > > Such
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> > everything
> > > > goes
> > > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your
> tests
> > it
> > > > > > does't
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove
> > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the
> reason
> > of
> > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12,
> Dmitrii
> > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's
> default
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node
> and
> > > > fails
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op
> failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > > something
> > > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Dmitry,

Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive failure handler
fallbacks were added?
Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of using any meaningful
failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain
> why it's a better choice).
> Explicit confirmation required.
>
> Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these
> > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
> >
> > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> > overridden method now.
> >
> > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it
> Ok
> > for you?
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> > Why
> > > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why
> tests
> > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > >
> > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > >
> > > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any
> better
> > > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> > > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
> > > without no-op handler?
> > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make
> everything
> > > properly.
> > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > >
> > >
> > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able
> to
> > > start doing this after rollback.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> > Why
> > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it
> is
> > > > > assumed".
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> > > failures
> > > > as
> > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because
> > you
> > > > > know
> > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better
> than
> > > me.
> > > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements.
> And
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent.
> If
> > > you
> > > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince
> > me
> > > > and
> > > > > > others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made
> > > really
> > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful
> failure
> > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix
> > these
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what
> problems
> > > the
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> > > rollback
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At
> > least,
> > > > > such
> > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing
> for
> > > each
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent
> merge
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks
> > louder
> > > > than
> > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea,
> > > which
> > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set
> > new
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> > successful
> > > in
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments
> > why
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in
> case
> > > you
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the
> explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests
> > > better.
> > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago.
> Please
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New
> commit
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> > > transfer
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > > > expectation
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and
> > replace
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one
> looks
> > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+
> > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after
> changing
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to
> > detect
> > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep
> hanged
> > > grid
> > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where
> "no-op"
> > > > better
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting
> node
> > > with
> > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed
> > > default
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start
> > every
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop
> > > where
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > > > triggered,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be
> checked
> > in
> > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> > > > inside
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then
> > test
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a
> > correct
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii
> Ryabov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception
> > thrown.
> > > > Such
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when
> everything
> > > goes
> > > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests
> it
> > > > > does't
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove
> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason
> of
> > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and
> > > fails
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> > something
> > > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of all no-op or explain
why it's a better choice).
Explicit confirmation required.

Otherwise, only rollback is an option.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:

> Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these
> tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?
>
> I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
> moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
> overridden method now.
>
> So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it Ok
> for you?
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> Why
> > >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests
> > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> >
> > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> >
> > >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better
> > >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> > You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
> > without no-op handler?
> > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything
> > properly.
> > Make a proper investigation first.
> >
> >
> > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to
> > start doing this after rollback.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests?
> Why
> > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton,
> > > >
> > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> > > > assumed".
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> > failures
> > > as
> > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because
> you
> > > > know
> > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than
> > me.
> > > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And
> I
> > > will
> > > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If
> > you
> > > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince
> me
> > > and
> > > > > others.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made
> > really
> > > > > > worse?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is
> > the
> > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix
> these
> > > test
> > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems
> > the
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> > rollback
> > > > the
> > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At
> least,
> > > > such
> > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for
> > each
> > > > test
> > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> > > > without
> > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks
> louder
> > > than
> > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea,
> > which
> > > > is not
> > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> > > initial
> > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set
> new
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be
> successful
> > in
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments
> why
> > > > these
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case
> > you
> > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will
> not
> > be
> > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests
> > better.
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> > > > discuss
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> > transfer
> > > > and
> > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > > expectation
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and
> replace
> > > > them
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+
> > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> > > > default
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > > > investigate
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to
> detect
> > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged
> > grid
> > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op"
> > > better
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node
> > with
> > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed
> > default
> > > > of
> > > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start
> every
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop
> > where
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > > triggered,
> > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked
> in
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > > behavior,
> > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> > > inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then
> test
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a
> correct
> > > > case
> > > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> > > handler
> > > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases
> when
> > > we
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception
> thrown.
> > > Such
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything
> > goes
> > > > as it
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> > > > does't
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> > > > explicit
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default
> > no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and
> > fails
> > > > the
> > > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> > > handler
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or
> something
> > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton, if you care enough here will you try to research a couple of these
tests? Or you are asking others to do things for you, aren't you?

I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check these test to keep
moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy to locate these
overridden method now.

So threat this change as contributed mechanism for failing tests. Is it Ok
for you?

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> >> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why
> >> should we keep No-Op for all?
> Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests
> fail and why no-op is a better choice.
>
> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
>
> >> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better
> >> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
> You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
> without no-op handler?
> My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything
> properly.
> Make a proper investigation first.
>
>
> Finally, let's stop this game.
> We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to
> start doing this after rollback.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why
> > should we keep No-Op for all?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> > > assumed".
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have
> failures
> > as
> > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > >
> > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> > > know
> > > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than
> me.
> > > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > > >
> > > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I
> > will
> > > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > > >
> > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If
> you
> > > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me
> > and
> > > > others.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made
> really
> > > > > worse?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is
> the
> > > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these
> > test
> > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems
> the
> > > fix
> > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will
> rollback
> > > the
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
> > > such
> > > > > "100
> > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for
> each
> > > test
> > > > > > group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> > > without
> > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder
> > than
> > > > > words
> > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea,
> which
> > > is not
> > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> > initial
> > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
> > > handler
> > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful
> in
> > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
> > > these
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case
> you
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not
> be
> > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests
> better.
> > > > > Please
> > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> > > discuss
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> > > changes
> > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to
> transfer
> > > and
> > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> > expectation
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
> > > them
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+
> test?
> > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> > > default
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > > investigate
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > > abstract
> > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > > critical
> > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
> > > expected
> > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged
> grid
> > > under
> > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op"
> > better
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node
> with
> > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed
> default
> > > of
> > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
> > > message
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop
> where
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> > triggered,
> > > you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
> > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> > behavior,
> > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> > inside
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
> > > should
> > > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
> > > case
> > > > > is to
> > > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> > handler
> > > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> > we
> > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown.
> > Such
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything
> goes
> > > as it
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> > > does't
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> > > explicit
> > > > > set
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default
> no-op
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and
> fails
> > > the
> > > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> > handler
> > > by
> > > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

>> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why
>> should we keep No-Op for all?
Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the proper explanation why tests
fail and why no-op is a better choice.

100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!

>> I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better
>> approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler.
You asking me to provide approach without explanation why tests fail
without no-op handler?
My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the issue and make everything
properly.
Make a proper investigation first.


Finally, let's stop this game.
We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was merged we will be able to
start doing this after rollback.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev <
eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why
> should we keep No-Op for all?
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> > assumed".
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures
> as
> > > these tests do test failures.
> > >
> > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> > know
> > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
> > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > >
> > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I
> will
> > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > >
> > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
> > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me
> and
> > > others.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Anton,
> > > >
> > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> > > > worse?
> > > >
> > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these
> test
> > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the
> > fix
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback
> > the
> > > > > changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
> > such
> > > > "100
> > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each
> > test
> > > > > group.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> > without
> > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder
> than
> > > > words
> > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which
> > is not
> > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> initial
> > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
> > handler
> > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
> > these
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> > > > merged
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > > provided.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> > discuss
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> > changes
> > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer
> > and
> > > > handle
> > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > handler is
> > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> expectation
> > > > inside
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
> > them
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> > default
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > investigate
> > > > and
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > abstract
> > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > critical
> > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
> > expected
> > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid
> > under
> > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op"
> better
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default
> > of
> > > > ALL
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
> > message
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> triggered,
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
> > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> behavior,
> > > > that you
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> inside
> > the
> > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
> > should
> > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
> > case
> > > > is to
> > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> handler
> > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> we
> > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown.
> Such
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes
> > as it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> > does't
> > > > need
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> > explicit
> > > > set
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails
> > the
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> handler
> > by
> > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > > > unexpected
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Eduard Shangareev <ed...@gmail.com>]

Guys,

I didn't get. What is the problem in saving No-Op for several tests? Why
should we keep No-Op for all?

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anton,
>
> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> assumed".
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as
> > these tests do test failures.
> >
> > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> know
> > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
> > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> >
> > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will
> > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> >
> > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
> > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and
> > others.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Anton,
> > >
> > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> > > worse?
> > >
> > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > >
> > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the
> fix
> > > > fixes.
> > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback
> the
> > > > changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
> such
> > > "100
> > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each
> test
> > > > group.
> > > >
> > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> without
> > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than
> > > words
> > > > > sometimes.
> > > > >
> > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which
> is not
> > > > > clear for others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
> handler
> > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in
> case
> > > of
> > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
> these
> > > tests
> > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> > > merged
> > > > > such
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > provided.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> > > Please
> > > > > pay
> > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> discuss
> > > this
> > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> changes
> > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer
> and
> > > handle
> > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> handler is
> > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation
> > > inside
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
> them
> > > with
> > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> default
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> investigate
> > > and
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> abstract
> > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> critical
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
> expected
> > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid
> under
> > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better
> > > than
> > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> > > try-catch
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default
> of
> > > ALL
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
> message
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered,
> you
> > > can
> > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
> > > that you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside
> the
> > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
> should
> > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
> case
> > > is to
> > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
> > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > > expect
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such
> > > tests
> > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes
> as it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> does't
> > > need
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> explicit
> > > set
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails
> the
> > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler
> by
> > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > > unexpected
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton, I disagree with this approach: "You will ask, other will provide
explanations/excuses/apology and so on". Since you rejecting to chime in
and help this means trying to manage instead of doing.

I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask to demonstrate any better
approach for tests which intentionally activate failure handler. I think
the only option is NoOp - we see this approach here. Just take 1 test and
prove your concept using any other option. If we don't have other options,
there is nothing to discuss why it is NoOp for 100 tests.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:38, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov,
>
> >> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> know
> >> how to do things better.
>
> What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but ..... 100+
> no-op still here because tests start failing :)"
> That's a completely different situation.
> And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution.
>
> A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op handler
> still required.
>
> Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it ok
> or no.
> Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is
> nothing to discuss.
>
> Please provide at least some examples with the following template
> Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY
> and we will agree or will try to find a better solution.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> > assumed".
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures
> as
> > > these tests do test failures.
> > >
> > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> > know
> > > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
> > > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> > >
> > > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I
> will
> > > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> > >
> > > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
> > > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me
> and
> > > others.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Anton,
> > > >
> > > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> > > > worse?
> > > >
> > > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> > > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these
> test
> > > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the
> > fix
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback
> > the
> > > > > changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
> > such
> > > > "100
> > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each
> > test
> > > > > group.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> > without
> > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder
> than
> > > > words
> > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which
> > is not
> > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the
> initial
> > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
> > handler
> > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
> > these
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> > > > merged
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > > provided.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> > discuss
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> > changes
> > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer
> > and
> > > > handle
> > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> > handler is
> > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
> expectation
> > > > inside
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
> > them
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> > default
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> > investigate
> > > > and
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> > abstract
> > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> > critical
> > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
> > expected
> > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid
> > under
> > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op"
> better
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default
> > of
> > > > ALL
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
> > message
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
> triggered,
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
> > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted
> behavior,
> > > > that you
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> > Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
> inside
> > the
> > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
> > should
> > > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
> > case
> > > > is to
> > > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure
> handler
> > > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> we
> > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown.
> Such
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes
> > as it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> > does't
> > > > need
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> > explicit
> > > > set
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii
> Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails
> > the
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
> handler
> > by
> > > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > > > unexpected
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Ivan,

>> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
>> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
>> assumed".

How about "we changed some handlers to proper, but keep other no-ops using
explicit copy-paste"? :)

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:

> Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov,
>
> >> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> know
> >> how to do things better.
>
> What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but ..... 100+
> no-op still here because tests start failing :)"
> That's a completely different situation.
> And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution.
>
> A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op
> handler still required.
>
> Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it
> ok or no.
> Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is
> nothing to discuss.
>
> Please provide at least some examples with the following template
> Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY
> and we will agree or will try to find a better solution.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anton,
>>
>> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
>> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
>> assumed".
>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures
>> as
>> > these tests do test failures.
>> >
>> > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
>> know
>> > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
>> > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
>> >
>> > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I
>> will
>> > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
>> >
>> > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
>> > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and
>> > others.
>> >
>> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > Hi Anton,
>> > >
>> > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
>> > > worse?
>> > >
>> > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
>> > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
>> > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
>> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > >
>> > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these
>> test
>> > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
>> > > >
>> > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the
>> fix
>> > > > fixes.
>> > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback
>> the
>> > > > changes.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
>> such
>> > > "100
>> > > > times copy-paste fix".
>> > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each
>> test
>> > > > group.
>> > > >
>> > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
>> without
>> > > > understanding what it fixes.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder
>> than
>> > > words
>> > > > > sometimes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which
>> is not
>> > > > > clear for others.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
>> > > > > selection of no-op.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
>> handler
>> > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in
>> case
>> > > of
>> > > > > > unexpected failures.
>> > > > > > That's not acceptable.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
>> these
>> > > tests
>> > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
>> > > merged
>> > > > > such
>> > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
>> > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
>> > > provided.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> dpavlov@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
>> > > Please
>> > > > > pay
>> > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
>> discuss
>> > > this
>> > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
>> changes
>> > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer
>> and
>> > > handle
>> > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
>> handler is
>> > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
>> > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
>> > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this
>> expectation
>> > > inside
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > special handler.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
>> them
>> > > with
>> > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
>> > > reasonable.
>> > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
>> > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
>> default
>> > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > handler?
>> > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
>> investigate
>> > > and
>> > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > this.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
>> abstract
>> > > > > classes,
>> > > > > > > so,
>> > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
>> > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
>> critical
>> > > > > internal
>> > > > > > > > issue
>> > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
>> > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
>> expected
>> > > > > > > failures
>> > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid
>> under
>> > > > > > > control).
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
>> > > av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
>> guarantees.
>> > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op"
>> better
>> > > than
>> > > > > > > "strict
>> > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
>> > > try-catch
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default
>> of
>> > > ALL
>> > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > noop
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
>> message
>> > > > > here
>> > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > saying
>> > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
>> > > possible.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be
>> triggered, you
>> > > can
>> > > > > > > > override
>> > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
>> test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
>> > > that you
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
>> Vinogradov" <
>> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure
>> inside the
>> > > > > > > try-catch
>> > > > > > > > > > block,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
>> should
>> > > > > rethrow
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
>> > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
>> case
>> > > is to
>> > > > > > wrap
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
>> > > usage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
>> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
>> > > expect
>> > > > > > > > critical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown.
>> Such
>> > > tests
>> > > > > > > trigger
>> > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes
>> as it
>> > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > go.
>> > > > > > > > > > > That's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
>> does't
>> > > need
>> > > > > an
>> > > > > > > old
>> > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov
>> <
>> > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
>> explicit
>> > > set
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > 100+
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov
>> <
>> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
>> > > failure
>> > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails
>> the
>> > > test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure
>> handler by
>> > > > > > overrided
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
>> > > unexpected
>> > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy Pavlov, Dmitrii Ryabov,

>> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
know
>> how to do things better.

What I see is "We replaced no-op with the proper handler, but ..... 100+
no-op still here because tests start failing :)"
That's a completely different situation.
And it's unacceptable to merge not a finished solution.

A proper explanation of problems why these tests have to have no-op handler
still required.

Once proper explanation will be provided we will be able to decide is it ok
or no.
Explanation lack means commit rollback and issue reopening and there is
nothing to discuss.

Please provide at least some examples with the following template
Test XXX required no-op handler because of YYY
and we will agree or will try to find a better solution.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anton,
>
> Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
> no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
> assumed".
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as
> > these tests do test failures.
> >
> > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you
> know
> > how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
> > Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
> >
> > If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will
> > be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
> >
> > If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
> > would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and
> > others.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Anton,
> > >
> > > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> > > worse?
> > >
> > > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> > > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> > > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > > >
> > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the
> fix
> > > > fixes.
> > > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback
> the
> > > > changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least,
> such
> > > "100
> > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each
> test
> > > > group.
> > > >
> > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge
> without
> > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than
> > > words
> > > > > sometimes.
> > > > >
> > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which
> is not
> > > > > clear for others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new
> handler
> > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in
> case
> > > of
> > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why
> these
> > > tests
> > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> > > merged
> > > > > such
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > > provided.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> > > Please
> > > > > pay
> > > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please
> discuss
> > > this
> > > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit
> changes
> > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer
> and
> > > handle
> > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail
> handler is
> > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation
> > > inside
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace
> them
> > > with
> > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing
> default
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to
> investigate
> > > and
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are
> abstract
> > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any
> critical
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect
> expected
> > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid
> under
> > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the
> guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better
> > > than
> > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> > > try-catch
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default
> of
> > > ALL
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every
> message
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered,
> you
> > > can
> > > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
> > > that you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton
> Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside
> the
> > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test
> should
> > > > > rethrow
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct
> case
> > > is to
> > > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
> > > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > > expect
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such
> > > tests
> > > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes
> as it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it
> does't
> > > need
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of
> explicit
> > > set
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails
> the
> > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler
> by
> > > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > > unexpected
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Anton,

Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to respell a name "massive
no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure handler only where it is
assumed".
ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
> Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as
> these tests do test failures.
>
> Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you know
> how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
> Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.
>
> If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will
> be happy if you contribute some improvements later.
>
> If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
> would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and
> others.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Anton,
> >
> > Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> > worse?
> >
> > As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> > handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> > harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> > > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> > >
> > > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix
> > > fixes.
> > > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such
> > "100
> > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test
> > > group.
> > >
> > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without
> > > understanding what it fixes.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than
> > words
> > > > sometimes.
> > > >
> > > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
> > > > clear for others.
> > > >
> > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > > > selection of no-op.
> > > >
> > > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
> > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case
> > of
> > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these
> > tests
> > > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> > merged
> > > > such
> > > > > changes.
> > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> > provided.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> > Please
> > > > pay
> > > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss
> > this
> > > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and
> > handle
> > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation
> > inside
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them
> > with
> > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate
> > and
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract
> > > > classes,
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better
> > than
> > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> > try-catch
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org
> > :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of
> > ALL
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message
> > > > here
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you
> > can
> > > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
> > that you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should
> > > > rethrow
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case
> > is to
> > > > > wrap
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
> > usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > expect
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such
> > tests
> > > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't
> > need
> > > > an
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit
> > set
> > > > of
> > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the
> > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> > > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> > unexpected
> > > > -
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are perfectly ok to have failures as
these tests do test failures.

Anton, there is no reason to revert other's contributions because you know
how to do things better. A lot of people can do things better than me.
Should we revert everything I've contributed? I hope - no.

If you can do things better, just commit further improvements. And I will
be happy if you contribute some improvements later.

If you would like to revert by veto, please justify your intent. If you
would discuss it with all community, please feel free to convince me and
others.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Anton,
>
> Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> worse?
>
> As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> >
> > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix
> > fixes.
> > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the
> > changes.
> >
> > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such
> "100
> > times copy-paste fix".
> > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test
> > group.
> >
> > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without
> > understanding what it fixes.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than
> words
> > > sometimes.
> > >
> > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
> > > clear for others.
> > >
> > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > > selection of no-op.
> > >
> > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
> > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case
> of
> > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these
> tests
> > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> merged
> > > such
> > > > changes.
> > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > >
> > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> provided.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> Please
> > > pay
> > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss
> this
> > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and
> handle
> > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation
> inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them
> with
> > > > > correct
> > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> reasonable.
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate
> and
> > > fix
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract
> > > classes,
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical
> > > internal
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > > > > control).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better
> than
> > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> try-catch
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org
> :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of
> ALL
> > > > tests
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message
> > > here
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> possible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you
> can
> > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
> that you
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should
> > > rethrow
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case
> is to
> > > > wrap
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
> usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such
> tests
> > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> > > > should
> > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't
> need
> > > an
> > > > > old
> > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit
> set
> > > of
> > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> unexpected
> > > -
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Ivan,

Do you mean massive no-op handler restore patch [1]?

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4974/files


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:53 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anton,
>
> Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really
> worse?
>
> As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
> handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
> harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> > properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
> >
> > But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix
> > fixes.
> > In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the
> > changes.
> >
> > That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such
> "100
> > times copy-paste fix".
> > Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test
> > group.
> >
> > P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without
> > understanding what it fixes.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than
> words
> > > sometimes.
> > >
> > > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
> > > clear for others.
> > >
> > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > > selection of no-op.
> > >
> > > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
> > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case
> of
> > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these
> tests
> > > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you
> merged
> > > such
> > > > changes.
> > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > > >
> > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be
> provided.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better.
> Please
> > > pay
> > > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss
> this
> > > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and
> handle
> > > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation
> inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them
> with
> > > > > correct
> > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks
> reasonable.
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate
> and
> > > fix
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract
> > > classes,
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical
> > > internal
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > > > > control).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better
> than
> > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with
> try-catch
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org
> :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of
> ALL
> > > > tests
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message
> > > here
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where
> possible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you
> can
> > > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior,
> that you
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should
> > > rethrow
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case
> is to
> > > > wrap
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler
> usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such
> tests
> > > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> > > > should
> > > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't
> need
> > > an
> > > > > old
> > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit
> set
> > > of
> > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op
> failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> > > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something
> unexpected
> > > -
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Anton,

Could you please summarize what does aforementioned patch made really worse?

As I see, the patch added a very good thing -- meaningful failure
handler in tests. And I think it is really important. But was is the
harm and does it overweight positive result? And why?
ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> Dmitriy,
>
> That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
> properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.
>
> But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix
> fixes.
> In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the
> changes.
>
> That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such "100
> times copy-paste fix".
> Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test
> group.
>
> P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without
> understanding what it fixes.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words
> > sometimes.
> >
> > No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
> > clear for others.
> >
> > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> > selection of no-op.
> >
> > If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
> > StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of
> > > unexpected failures.
> > > That's not acceptable.
> > >
> > > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests
> > > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged
> > such
> > > changes.
> > > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> > >
> > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> > >
> > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please
> > pay
> > > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this
> > > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > >
> > > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle
> > > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside
> > > the
> > > > > special handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with
> > > > correct
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default
> > failure
> > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and
> > fix
> > > > > this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract
> > classes,
> > > > so,
> > > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical
> > internal
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > > > failures
> > > > > or
> > > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > > > control).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than
> > > > "strict
> > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL
> > > tests
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message
> > here
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can
> > > > > override
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you
> > > are
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should
> > rethrow
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to
> > > wrap
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests
> > > > trigger
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> > > should
> > > > > go.
> > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need
> > an
> > > > old
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set
> > of
> > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> > > overrided
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected
> > -
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

That's an incorrect idea to ask me to provide PR or to fix these test
properly since I'm not an author or reviewer.

But, I, as a community member, ask you to explain what problems the fix
fixes.
In case you're not able to provide the explanation I will rollback the
changes.

That's not acceptable to merge fix of unknown problems. At least, such "100
times copy-paste fix".
Please provide the explanation of the problem we're fixing for each test
group.

P.s. My goal is not to rollback something, but to prevent merge without
understanding what it fixes.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:

> Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words
> sometimes.
>
> No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
> clear for others.
>
> Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
> selection of no-op.
>
> If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
> StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of
> > unexpected failures.
> > That's not acceptable.
> >
> > As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests
> > have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged
> such
> > changes.
> > That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
> >
> > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> > What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
> >
> > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please
> pay
> > > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this
> > > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > >
> > > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle
> > > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > > activated from any pool inside a node.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > > Depends on the test.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside
> > the
> > > > special handler.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with
> > > correct
> > > > fixes.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > >
> > > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default
> failure
> > > > > handler?
> > > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and
> fix
> > > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract
> classes,
> > > so,
> > > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical
> internal
> > > > issue
> > > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > > failures
> > > > or
> > > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > > control).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than
> > > "strict
> > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL
> > tests
> > > > from
> > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message
> here
> > > from
> > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can
> > > > override
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you
> > are
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > > try-catch
> > > > > > block,
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should
> rethrow
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to
> > wrap
> > > > it
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests
> > > trigger
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> > should
> > > > go.
> > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need
> an
> > > old
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set
> of
> > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure
> > > handler
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> > overrided
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected
> -
> > > > write
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Anton, please provide PR to demo your idea. Code speaks louder than words
sometimes.

No reason to revert a contribution if someone has an idea, which is not
clear for others.

Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii contribution, but the initial
selection of no-op.

If you will do a test failure fixes later and you will set new handler
StopNode+FailTest as the only option - ok for me.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of
> unexpected failures.
> That's not acceptable.
>
> As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests
> have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged such
> changes.
> That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.
>
> Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
> What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.
>
> And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay
> > attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this
> > selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> >
> > Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle
> > exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> > activated from any pool inside a node.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > > Depends on the test.
> > >
> > > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> > >
> > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside
> the
> > > special handler.
> > >
> > > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with
> > correct
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Dmitri,
> > > >
> > > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > >
> > > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure
> > > > handler?
> > > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix
> > > this.
> > > >
> > > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes,
> > so,
> > > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal
> > > issue
> > > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> > failures
> > > or
> > > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> > control).
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >
> > > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than
> > "strict
> > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL
> tests
> > > from
> > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here
> > from
> > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can
> > > override
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you
> are
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> > try-catch
> > > > > block,
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow
> > the
> > > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to
> wrap
> > > it
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > > critical
> > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests
> > trigger
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it
> should
> > > go.
> > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an
> > old
> > > > > value
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of
> > > 100+
> > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure
> > handler
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by
> overrided
> > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected -
> > > write
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

As I said before, these changes allow tests to be successful in case of
unexpected failures.
That's not acceptable.

As a reviewer, you have to be ready to provide arguments why these tests
have to be fixed this way and what was the problem, in case you merged such
changes.
That's unacceptable to hide issues instead of fix.

Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to provide the explanation.
What problem and at what test we solved by no-op handler.

And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will not be provided.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:

> I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay
> attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this
> selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
> NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
>
> Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle
> exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
> activated from any pool inside a node.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > >> Which code block will do a throw?
> > Depends on the test.
> >
> > Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
> >
> > That's not a correct fix.
> > In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the
> > special handler.
> >
> > I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with
> correct
> > fixes.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Dmitri,
> > >
> > > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure
> > > handler?
> > > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix
> > this.
> > >
> > > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes,
> so,
> > > we have much more affected tests.
> > > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal
> > issue
> > > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected
> failures
> > or
> > > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under
> control).
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >
> > > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than
> "strict
> > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch
> will
> > be
> > > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests
> > from
> > > > > noop
> > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here
> from
> > > > > saying
> > > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can
> > override
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are
> > > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the
> try-catch
> > > > block,
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow
> the
> > > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap
> > it
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > critical
> > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests
> trigger
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should
> > go.
> > > > > That's
> > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an
> old
> > > > value
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of
> > 100+
> > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure
> handler
> > > was
> > > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected -
> > write
> > > > here
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

I will not do any rollback because changes make tests better. Please pay
attention that no-op became default long time ago. Please discuss this
selection with authors of the previous commit. New commit changes
NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.

Please provide a PR to demonstrate your idea how to transfer and handle
exceptions. I believe it will not work because the fail handler is
activated from any pool inside a node.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> >> Which code block will do a throw?
> Depends on the test.
>
> Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.
>
> That's not a correct fix.
> In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the
> special handler.
>
> I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with correct
> fixes.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dmitri,
> >
> > The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> > Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure
> > handler?
> > If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix
> this.
> >
> > I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so,
> > we have much more affected tests.
> > Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal
> issue
> > occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> > Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures
> or
> > if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control).
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict
> > > try-catch with a check"?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will
> be
> > > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests
> from
> > > > noop
> > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from
> > > > saying
> > > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can
> override
> > > > > default
> > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are
> > > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> > av@apache.org>
> > > > > > написал:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch
> > > block,
> > > > > of
> > > > > > course.
> > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > > > > > exception.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap
> it
> > > with
> > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> critical
> > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger
> > > > failure
> > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should
> go.
> > > > That's
> > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old
> > > value
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of
> 100+
> > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler
> > was
> > > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected -
> write
> > > here
> > > > > or
> > > > > > >> in the
> > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

>> Which code block will do a throw?
Depends on the test.

Looks like we make the *bad *test even *worse*.

That's not a correct fix.
In case you expect failure you have to check this expectation inside the
special handler.

I'd like to ask you to rollback these changes and replace them with correct
fixes.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Dmitri,
>
> The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
> Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure
> handler?
> If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix this.
>
> I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so,
> we have much more affected tests.
> Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal issue
> occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
> Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures or
> if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control).
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> > Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict
> > try-catch with a check"?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be
> > > less readable than no-op handler.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> > >
> > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from
> > > noop
> > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from
> > > saying
> > > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > > >
> > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Really, why noop?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override
> > > > default
> > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > > >
> > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <
> av@apache.org>
> > > > > написал:
> > > > >
> > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch
> > block,
> > > > of
> > > > > course.
> > > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > > > > exception.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it
> > with
> > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Anton,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger
> > > failure
> > > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go.
> > > That's
> > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old
> > value
> > > of
> > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler
> was
> > > > > >> changed to
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write
> > here
> > > > or
> > > > > >> in the
> > > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Dmitri,

The meaningful failure handler as a default one looks reasonable.
Thanks a lot.

But what is the reason to fallback to noop for 100+ test?
Does it means these test become failed after changing default failure
handler?
If so, let's create a ticket (may be umbrella) to investigate and fix this.

I see 100+ touched files in PR and some of them are abstract classes, so,
we have much more affected tests.
Seems, most of failover test doesn't expects if any critical internal issue
occur and there is no need to fallback to noop.
Other test should set custom failure handler to detect expected failures or
if grid hanging simulation is needed (to keep hanged grid under control).

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:

> Dmitrii,
>
> No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
> Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict
> try-catch with a check"?
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be
> > less readable than no-op handler.
> >
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
> >
> > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from
> > noop
> > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from
> > saying
> > > thank you to Dmitry.
> > >
> > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> > >
> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Really, why noop?
> > > >
> > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override
> > > default
> > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > > This will make test clearer.
> > > >
> > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are
> trying
> > to
> > > > improve, isnt'it?
> > > >
> > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
> > > > написал:
> > > >
> > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch
> block,
> > > of
> > > > course.
> > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > > > exception.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >
> > > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it
> with
> > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Anton,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger
> > failure
> > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go.
> > That's
> > > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old
> value
> > of
> > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefireone@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
> > > > >> changed to
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write
> here
> > > or
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitrii,

No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees.
Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict
try-catch with a check"?

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be
> less readable than no-op handler.
>
> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:
>
> > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from
> noop
> > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from
> saying
> > thank you to Dmitry.
> >
> > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
> >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Really, why noop?
> > >
> > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override
> > default
> > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > > This will make test clearer.
> > >
> > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are trying
> to
> > > improve, isnt'it?
> > >
> > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
> > > написал:
> > >
> > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block,
> > of
> > > course.
> > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > > exception.
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >
> > > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
> > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Anton,
> > > >>
> > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger
> failure
> > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go.
> That's
> > > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value
> of
> > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >> >
> > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> somefireone@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
> > > >> changed to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here
> > or
> > > >> in the
> > > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be
less readable than no-op handler.

ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpavlov@apache.org:

> Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from noop
> to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from saying
> thank you to Dmitry.
>
> Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Really, why noop?
> >
> > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override
> default
> > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> > This will make test clearer.
> >
> > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are trying to
> > improve, isnt'it?
> >
> > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
> > написал:
> >
> > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block,
> of
> > course.
> > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> > exception.
> >
> >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > The solution is not clear to me.
> > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
> > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> > >
> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Anton,
> > >>
> > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
> > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
> > >> why we need no-op handler here.
> > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
> > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sincerely,
> > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> >
> > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Dmitrii,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com
> >:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
> > >> changed to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here
> or
> > >> in the
> > >> > > > ticket [1].
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from noop
to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from saying
thank you to Dmitry.

Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible.

вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> Really, why noop?
>
> If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override default
> one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
> This will make test clearer.
>
> With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are trying to
> improve, isnt'it?
>
> 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
> написал:
>
> And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of
> course.
> In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the
> exception.
>
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > The solution is not clear to me.
> > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
> > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
> >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Anton,
> >>
> >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
> >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
> >> why we need no-op handler here.
> >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
> >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >
> >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> > > Dmitrii,
> >> > >
> >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
> >> changed to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or
> >> in the
> >> > > > ticket [1].
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

Really, why noop?

If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override default
one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test.
This will make test clearer.

With noop, you'll get previous unwanted  behavior, that you are trying to
improve, isnt'it?

4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <av...@apache.org>
написал:

And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of
course.
In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the exception.


вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:


> Dmitrii,
>
> The solution is not clear to me.
> In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
> try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Anton,
>>
>> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
>> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
>> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
>> why we need no-op handler here.
>> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > Hi Igniters,
>> >
>> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
>> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > > Dmitrii,
>> > >
>> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
>> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello, Igniters!
>> > > >
>> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
>> changed to
>> > > the
>> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
>> > > >
>> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
>> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or
>> in the
>> > > > ticket [1].
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, of
course.
In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the exception.


вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> The solution is not clear to me.
> In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
> try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Anton,
>>
>> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
>> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
>> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
>> why we need no-op handler here.
>> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > Hi Igniters,
>> >
>> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
>> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > > Dmitrii,
>> > >
>> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
>> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello, Igniters!
>> > > >
>> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was
>> changed to
>> > > the
>> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
>> > > >
>> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
>> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or
>> in the
>> > > > ticket [1].
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitrii,

The solution is not clear to me.
In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with
try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage.

вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:

> Anton,
>
> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
> why we need no-op handler here.
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > >
> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed
> to
> > > the
> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > > >
> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > > >
> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in
> the
> > > > ticket [1].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > > >
> > >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>]

Anton,

Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical
failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger failure
handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. That's
why we need no-op handler here.
вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi Igniters,
>
> BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
> handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> >
> >
> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hello, Igniters!
> > >
> > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to
> > the
> > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> > >
> > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> > >
> > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the
> > > ticket [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> > >
> >

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>]

Hi Igniters,

BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value of
handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
> NoOpFailureHandlers?
>
>
> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello, Igniters!
> >
> > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to
> the
> > handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
> >
> > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> > `getFailureHandler()` method.
> >
> > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the
> > ticket [1].
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
> >
>

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Dmitrii,

Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+
NoOpFailureHandlers?


вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov <so...@gmail.com>:

> Hello, Igniters!
>
> Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was changed to the
> handler, which stops the node and fails the test.
>
> Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided
> `getFailureHandler()` method.
>
> If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here or in the
> ticket [1].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227
>