Yep, link may not be correct. Here is correct version: TC: *https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3542%2Fhead>*
вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:41, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > Hi Maxim, > > could you please provide link to TC run on your PR? It seems link provided > points to run of master. In changes field you may select pull/3542/head > before starting RunAll. > > Igniters, > > this change is related to our test framework, so change may affect your > tests. Please join to review > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 27 февр. 2018 г. в 16:14, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi all, > > > > I think, I've done with this issue, what should we do next? > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > > Upsource: https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-502 > > TC: > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=723895&personal=false&buildTypeId=&tab=vcsModificationTests > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > > > > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 14:12, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > To my mind stopAllGrids call should be kept in afterTestsStop(). If > > > developer forgot to call super(), he will see exception from > > > beforeTestsStart() > > > added by you. > > > > > > If you think patch is ready to be reviewed, please change JIRA status > to > > > "Patch Available". > > > > > > Optionally you can create Upsource review. It would be easier for > > multiple > > > reviewers to handle this patch. This test framework is used by all > > Igniters > > > so Upsource would be good option (https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ > ). > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > чт, 22 февр. 2018 г. в 13:44, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I've made some changes based on our previous discusstions, please see > > PR > > > > [1]: > > > > 1) Remove duplicated code for stopGrid (by index and by name); > > > > 2) Add new method that thows exception if not all grids haven't > stopped > > > > correctly; > > > > 3) Change tests that have been affected by this changes; > > > > > > > > Also, I have some thoughts for clarification: > > > > 1) beforeTestsStart() - I expect here in subtests that grids are not > > > > started yet. Am I right? > > > > 2) I think we should call stopAllGrids in tearDown method. So, if in > > some > > > > cases we'll override afterTestsStop in subclasses and forgot to call > > > > super() it won't lead us to exception. > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3542 > > > > [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewModification.html?modId=717275 > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6842 > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 18:28, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Thank you all, > > > > > > > > > > I'll add this comment's for JIRA ticket, if you don't mind. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:16, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > > >> Yes, this solution allows to cover both cases: > > > > >> a) not stopped node from previous test and > > > > >> b) allows to remove useless code that stops Ignite nodes from each > > > test. > > > > >> > > > > >> ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 15:13, Anton Vinogradov < > > > avinogra...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Maxim, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > We discussed with Dima privately, and decided > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 1) We have to assert that there is no alive nodes at > > > > GridAbstractTest's > > > > >> > beforeTestsStarted > > > > >> > 2) We have to kill all alive nodes (without force) at > > > > GridAbstractTest's > > > > >> > afterTestsStopped > > > > >> > 3) In case of any exceptions at #2 we have to see test error > > > > >> > 4) We can get rid of all useless stopAllGrids at > > GridAbstractTest's > > > > >> > subclasses. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest 's > > > > >> > > afterTestsStopped > > > > >> > > method body. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Can't agree with it becase implicit silent shutdown of nodes > > from > > > > test > > > > >> > > framework may cause a lot of bugs introduced to Ignite. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I think stop+test fail should occur. > > > > >> > > In that case author of incorrect test or not consistent Ignite > > > > >> shutdown > > > > >> > > will see problem. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 'Fail fast' if always better than hidding real problem under > > > > automatic > > > > >> > > framework feature. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 14:05, Anton Vinogradov < > > > > >> avinogra...@gridgain.com > > > > >> > >: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I've made some research about this problem and i think > that > > in > > > > >> > general > > > > >> > > we > > > > >> > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in GridAbstractTest class > to > > > > >> > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am I right? > > > > >> > > > Let's just add stopAllGrids(flase) to GridAbstractTest 's > > > > >> > > > afterTestsStopped method > > > > >> > > > body. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean cancel) this > > > > "cancel" > > > > >> > > > That's just a flag means "do not wait for any operations > > finish" > > > > >> > > > See no reason to set it true in that case. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped this will > > affect > > > > only > > > > >> > > > > last test (method). > > > > >> > > > The idea is to stop all nodes at last test's method finish. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Nodes that survive between tests can affect successive > > > > >> > > > tests. > > > > >> > > > Thats ok. we have a lot tests where nodes reusable between > > > test's > > > > >> > > methods. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > > >> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > IMO nodes that survive between tests is not general > practice > > > and > > > > >> I'm > > > > >> > > not > > > > >> > > > > sure is a best practice. I suggest to mark such tests with > > > some > > > > >> > method > > > > >> > > > > overriden from AbstractTest. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > About cancel flag, please note stopAllGrids(boolean > cancel) > > > > >> > > cancel=false > > > > >> > > > > allows to wait of checkpoint ends in case persistence > > enabled. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I still suggest to avoid stopping any nodes by test, but > > > > validate > > > > >> not > > > > >> > > > > stopped node exist and fail test instead of siltent > implicit > > > > >> actions. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sincerely, > > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 7 февр. 2018 г. в 13:04, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > >> >: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your first question, the use of > > afterTestsStopped > > > is > > > > >> not > > > > >> > > > enough > > > > >> > > > > > to stop all nodes, since each individual test (method) > can > > > > start > > > > >> > > custom > > > > >> > > > > set > > > > >> > > > > > of notes during its operation, and this very test should > > > stop > > > > >> all > > > > >> > > those > > > > >> > > > > > nodes. If you delegate closing to afterTestsStopped this > > > will > > > > >> > affect > > > > >> > > > only > > > > >> > > > > > last test (method). Nodes that survive between tests can > > > > affect > > > > >> > > > > successive > > > > >> > > > > > tests. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-07 1:10 GMT+03:00 Maxim Muzafarov < > > > maxmu...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've made some research about this problem and i think > > > that > > > > in > > > > >> > > > general > > > > >> > > > > we > > > > >> > > > > > > should move stopAllGrids method in GridAbstractTest > > class > > > to > > > > >> > > > > > > afterTestsStopped method with some changes. Am I > right? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Also, I have a question about stopAllGrids(boolean > > cancel) > > > > >> this > > > > >> > > > > "cancel" > > > > >> > > > > > > argument. Why in some cases we should interrupt > > ComputeJob > > > > >> and in > > > > >> > > > some > > > > >> > > > > > > cases shouldn't? For example here: > > > > >> > > > > > > IgniteBaselineAffinityTopologyActivationTest#afterTest > > > > >> > > > > > > we call method stopAllGrids(false) this way. Why not > > > "true" > > > > >> > > argument > > > > >> > > > > > > instead? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
