Can we setup a compatibility checker job in jenkins? Start a minicluster in one process, and use a client in another process to communicate with it. The version of the client should be >= 0.98 and <= the version of the minicluster. Of course we need to design the testing code carefully to make sure that we have tested all the cases.
And also I think we should make sure that no proto3 only feature is introduced in our proto files until branch-1 is dead. Maybe a precommit check? Thanks. 2016-10-01 11:55 GMT+08:00 Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>: > have we experimentally confirmed that wire compatibility is > maintained? I saw one mention of expecting wire compatibility to be > fine, but nothing with someone using e.g. the clusterdock work or > something to mix servers / clients or do replication. > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > I intend to do a mass commit late this weekend that moves us on to a > shaded > > protobuf-3.1.0, either Sunday night or Monday morning. > > > > If objection, please speak up or if need more time for > > consideration/review, just shout. > > > > I want to merge the branch HBASE-16264 into master (it is running here up > > on jenkins https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/HBase/job/HBASE- > 16264/). > > The branch at HBASE-16264 has three significant bodies-of-work that > > unfortunately are tangled and can only go in of a piece. > > > > * HBASE-16264 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16264> The > > shading of our protobuf usage so we can upgrade and/or run with a patched > > protobuf WITHOUT breaking REST, Spark, and in particular, Coprocessor > > Endpoints. > > * HBASE-16567 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16567> A > move > > up on to (shaded) protobuf-3.1.0 > > * HBASE-16741 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16741> An > > amendment of our generate protobufs step to include shading and a > bundling > > of protobuf src (with a means of calling a patch srcs hook) > > > > Together we're talking about 40MB of change mostly made of the movement > of > > generated files or the application of a pattern that alters where we get > > imports from. When done, you should notice no difference and should be > able > > to go about your business as per usual. Upside is that we will be able to > > avoid coming onheap doing protobuf marshalling/unmarshalling as protobuf > > 2.5.0 requires. Downside is that we repeat a good portion of our internal > > protos, once non-shaded so Coprocessor Endpoints can keep working and > then > > again as shaded for internal use. > > > > I provide some more overview below on the changes. See the shading doc > > here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H4NgLXQ9Y9KejwobddCqaVMEDCGby > DcXtdF5iAfDIEk/edit# > > for more detail (Patches are up on review board -- except the latest > > HBASE-16264 which is too big for JIRA and RB). I am currently working on > a > > devs chapter for the book on protobuf going forward that will go in as > part > > of this patch. > > > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > > > Items of note: > > > > * Two new modules; one named hbase-protocol-shaded that is used by hbase > > core. It has in it a shaded (and later patched) protobuf. The other new > > module is hbase-endpoint which goes after hbase-server and has those > > bundled endpoints that I was able to break out of core (there are a few > > that are hopelessly entangled that need to be undone as CPEPs but > > fortunately belong in core: Auth, Access, MultiRow). > > * I've tested running a branch-1 CPEP against a master with these > patches > > in place and stuff like ACL (A CPEP) run from the branch-1 shell work > > against the branch-2 server. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> This project goes on. I updated HBASE-1563 "Shade protobuf" with some > doc > >> on a final approach. We need to be able to refer to both shaded and > >> non-shaded protobuf so we can support sending HDFS old-school pb > Messages > >> but also so Coprocessor Endpoints keep working though internally > protobufs > >> have been relocated. Funny you should ask, but yes, there are some > >> downsides (as predicted by contributors on the JIRA). I'd be interested > to > >> hear if they are too burdensome. In particular, your IDE experience > gets a > >> little convoluted as you will need to add to your build path, a jar with > >> the relocated pbs. A pain. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> St.Ack > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > On an initial pass, the only difficult part seems to be interaction > >>>> with > >>>> > HDFS in asyncwal (might just pull in the HDFS messages). > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> I have some idea how we can make this work either by pushing asyncwal > >>>> upstream to HDFS or through some maven tricks, depending on how much > >>>> time we have. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Maven tricks? Tell us more. Here or drop a note up in the issue. > >>> Thanks Sean, > >>> St.Ack > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > busbey >
