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 <a...@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 <nizhi...@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 <somefire...@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 dpav...@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 <a...@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 <vololo...@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 <somefire...@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 a...@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 <
> > >> vololo...@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 <
> > >> nizhi...@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 dpav...@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 <
> > >>>> nizhi...@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 <
> > >>>>> nizhi...@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 <
> > >>>>>>> nizhi...@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 <
> > >>>>>>> dpav...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>> nizhi...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>> dpav...@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
> > >> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> stku...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nizhi...@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
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a...@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.mashen...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpav...@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
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a...@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.shangar...@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
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo...@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
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpav...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vololo...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a...@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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpav...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a...@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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpav...@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
