Thanks Ralph. Seems the unit tests are picking up valid problems, which is reassuring. Curious about execsource although I've got a feeling that did change since the last release?????
Tristan On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, 19:03 Ralph Goers, <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > There seem to be two builds running and both fail but fail in different > places. > > The first build seems to be failing in a way it shouldn’t. The test is for > not specifying any Kafka partitions. > The behavior of how Kafka handles this changed in version 2.4 so it should > only be checking to see if it > received all the evants, but it appears it is somehow in the logic to > check that all the partitions have an > equal number of events. I’ve added more info into the assert message to > help diagnose this. > > The second build is failing in changes I just made to upgrade Netty & > Avro. It appears to be failing > checking the local host name. I will have to add some info to the error to > determine what it getting for a > hostname. > > I then ran the build in an Ubuntu VM on my MacBook and it got an error in > TestExecSource (which hasn’t > been changed). It seems it is calling process.waitFor() and getting a > returned value of 1. I changed the > test to call waitFor before calling destroy and it passed. It then failed > in TestFileChannelRestart giving me > IOExceptions saying the checkpoint hadn’t completed and the checkpoint > interval should be increased. > I added logic to retry in this situation but there is a unit test that > tries to force that error so I had to have > it bypass the fix in that case. > > I committed those changes and will look at the results of the next Travis > build to see what additional info > it can provide. > > Ralph > > > > On Jan 24, 2022, at 12:18 AM, Tristan Stevens <tris...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > It seems that for some reason the Travis builds are failing again. One > of them has been since the Log4j and SLF4J bump (odd) and the other since > the Kafka upgrade. > > > > Anybody got some cycles in investigate whether these are just flaky > tests and/or whether there’s something more sinister in there? > > > > Thanks > > Tristan > > > >
