Pavel,
>> A new version of Ignite has released and a developer should update
>> compatibility tests to run it against the new version.
Now I think that understand a problem which you are trying to solve,
but I'd suggest another solution:
In unit-testing world such problems usually is solved similar way as
parameterized tests in JUnit.
>From my point of view we should implement test-runner supported
annotation, for example:
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Target({ElementType.TYPE, ElementType.FIELD})
@Inherited
public @interface RunWithIgnite {
IgniteVersion since() default IgniteVersion.ver2_1;
IgniteVersion until();
}
So, a developer will be able use annotation to run a test with
different Ignite's versions.
I believe that it is much flexible solution in comparison with new
framework since we are still able to run nodes of directly defined
version.
>> I still don't understand why this version was explicitly added and
>> not just inherited from ignite-indexing. If we delegate all dependency
>> management to Maven itself it will simplify tests development. Tests will
>> look much simpler.
At the current implementation, we build a classpath based on statement
"full current classpath with replaced ignite-core artifacts". In you
example, test relates to "ignite-indexing" module which changed H2
dependency version in one of previous version, so the dependency had
to be excluded directly in tests.
If it's a problem for us, this can be solved easily with a new
approach to build class path based on statement "only ignite-core
module + compatibility module". Look at
"IgniteCompatibilityAbstractTest#getDependencies" for more details.
>> Suppose you have a closure that invokes some deprecated method which will
>> be removed in next release. After method removal, such tests will be
>> broken. At the current framework, I can't see a resolution of that problem.
There is not such problem in the current framework, you described an
issue which will be in a new framework without restricting "compatible
version" for test.
Anyway see my suggestion about the annotation above, it solves
described issue too.
In summary, all described issues (if they are issues really) can be
easily solved in the current framework. I see no reason in a new
framework with restricting current API.
What do you think?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 5:00 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Just a reminder: Veto is valid with justification. I see no reasons either
> (need some time to dive into details), but it is not a reason for a veto.
>
> ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 16:39, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Please stop chilling community :)
> > No one makes final decisions here.
> > Please make sure you've got my position before chilling :)
> >
> > I see no arguments to replace one solution with another.
> > In case no real reasons will be provided this merge will gain my Veto, just
> > a warning...
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:37 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > > So I suggest chilling a couple of days without any discussion.
> > >
> > > Why you trying to stop regular, positive dev-list discussion?
> > >
> > > I think, we should have a strong reason to throw away some subsystem and
> > > completely rewrite it.
> > > We will damage product robustness with it.
> > >
> > > >> 1. Automatic tests scaling for new versions.
> > > >> 2. Automatic dependency management.
> > >
> > > This features needed by Ignite, for sure.
> > > Pavel, can we extend current solution with new framework features?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 16:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Hi, please do not rush to make any final decision. I think we all need
> > > some
> > > > time to think about these 2 solutions.
> > > >
> > > > So I suggest chilling a couple of days without any discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Later we can come back to this topic and dive into it once again, maybe
> > > we
> > > > can merge it into one taking the best parts of both.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 16:07, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > >> 1. Automatic tests scaling for new versions.
> > > > > >> 2. Automatic dependency management.
> > > > > Let's just improve the current solution.
> > > > > See no problems here.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll have my *Veto* on merge without real reasons to replace
> > solution
> > > > > instead of improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:55 PM Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my first message, I already noticed the usability problems of
> > the
> > > > > > current framework and showed how they can be solved using the new
> > > > > > framework.
> > > > > > It gives us 2 major advantages:
> > > > > > 1. Automatic tests scaling for new versions.
> > > > > > 2. Automatic dependency management.
> > > > > > Described approach simplifies tests writing and supporting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see now how we can avoid manual versions adding and
> > > supporting
> > > > in
> > > > > > test suites and avoid manual dependency management using custom
> > java
> > > > api
> > > > > > for Maven in the current version of the framework.
> > > > > > If you have ideas how these problems can be resolved in the current
> > > > > version
> > > > > > please share it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The new framework is designed for persistence compatibility first
> > but
> > > > can
> > > > > > be used for thin client testing as well.
> > > > > > It works exactly as you described. It collects all available
> > testing
> > > > > > versions by scanning pom files. Then it builds jars for all old
> > > > versions
> > > > > > using Maven.
> > > > > > Test framework run compatibility tests against all detected old
> > > > versions.
> > > > > > The number of versions to test is controlled by a property.
> > > > > > Some versions can be excluded for particular test suite or the user
> > > can
> > > > > > bound it using versions range.
> > > > > > In all of these cases, there are no needs to copy-paste methods for
> > > > each
> > > > > of
> > > > > > testing Ignite versions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 12:45, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Pavel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please, clarify.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What exactly your new compatibility framework should check?
> > > > > > > I know at lease 2 compatible subsystem in Ignite that should work
> > > > with
> > > > > > > previous versions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Persistence.
> > > > > > > 2. Thin client.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A new version of Ignite has released and a developer should
> > > update
> > > > > > > compatibility tests to run it against the new version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose to change current approach - check version X with
> > version
> > > > Y.
> > > > > > > We should check X with X - 1 with X - 2 and so on, depending on
> > our
> > > > > > > compatibility policies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This approach should lead to the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Tests should contains only number of previous versions we
> > should
> > > > > > check.
> > > > > > > 2. Test framework should build versions list internally and use
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 11:41, Pavel Kovalenko <
> > jokse...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for answers!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> I'm not sure what is a problem here?
> > > > > > > > At the moment it's a little bit hard to understand the impact
> > of
> > > > > such a
> > > > > > > > change because the number of test suites is small.
> > > > > > > > Let's Imagine you have X compatibility test suites where X is a
> > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > big number, let's say 20.
> > > > > > > > A new version of Ignite has released and a developer should
> > > update
> > > > > > > > compatibility tests to run it against the new version.
> > > > > > > > A developer should manually find all of these 20 test suites
> > and
> > > in
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > these suites and add a new version to test it (new method).
> > > > > > > > This is a long process and there could be developer mistakes,
> > > some
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > test suites can be missed and nobody will know about it before
> > > real
> > > > > > > > compatibility problem appears.
> > > > > > > > We already faced with the situation when after new version
> > > release
> > > > > > > > (2.5-2.6) no compatibility tests were modified to support new
> > > > version
> > > > > > > > because nobody remembers about it and there is no such process
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > Adding new pom is a very simple step and can be done by any
> > human
> > > > who
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > may not be familiar with the compatibility module and may not
> > > know
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > which compatibility tests are used. If we include adding pom
> > file
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > post-release process all existing tests will automatically
> > detect
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > version and next TC run will immediately show to us results. If
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > some compatibility problems during development new version TC
> > run
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > show
> > > > > > > > it. At the current approach, compatibility tests are out of
> > focus
> > > > and
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > may not see potential issues.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> This is not about usability, it's about the framework's
> > > > internals
> > > > > > > > At the current approach, a developer should take care of
> > > dependency
> > > > > > > > management for the old versions. E.g. if you look
> > > > > > > > at IgnitePKIndexesMigrationToUnwrapPkTest you can see "magic"
> > H2
> > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > version. I still don't understand why this version was
> > explicitly
> > > > > added
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > not just inherited from ignite-indexing. If we delegate all
> > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > management to Maven itself it will simplify tests development.
> > > > Tests
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > look much simpler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Please, describe the issue in more details?
> > > > > > > > Suppose you have a closure that invokes some deprecated method
> > > > which
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be removed in next release. After method removal, such tests
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > broken. At the current framework, I can't see a resolution of
> > > that
> > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > In a new framework, you can keep the old version of closure,
> > mark
> > > > it
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > special annotation and place to separate module with old Ignite
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > dependency. This closure will be compiled using an old version
> > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > and the user can still run it on the old version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 19 февр. 2019 г. в 21:44, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First of all, I'd like to clarify that the Compatibility
> > > Testing
> > > > > > > > > Framework was designed to work with a cluster of
> > multi-version
> > > > > nodes.
> > > > > > > > > The main idea is to run a test to verify backward
> > compatibility
> > > > or
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > some kind of rolling upgrades.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's not about persistence compatibility, but actually, it is
> > > > used
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > this now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> 1) It's uncomfortable to add and support new versions of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > product.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what is a problem here?
> > > > > > > > > As I understand you suggest to do similar things - adding new
> > > > > pom.xml
> > > > > > > > > when new a version is released. Pay attention that not all
> > > tests
> > > > > > > > > should be tested on all versions, some test may want to test
> > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > versions each other.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> 2) Manual maven dependency through java api.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is not about usability, it's about the framework's
> > > > internals.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > you have issues let's fix it and improve approach if needed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> 3) It doesn't cover the case when some code which works on
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > version will not work on older versions due to
> > compile/runtime
> > > > > > > > > incompatibility.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please, describe the issue in more details?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:55 PM Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > > > jokse...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> What about the current compatibility framework?
> > > > > > > > > > Current compatibility framework will be removed after final
> > > > > > adjusting
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > new framework.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Could you please share examples for each feature you
> > > > > mentioned?
> > > > > > > > > > You can see example in PR e.g. file
> > > > > > > > > > modules/compatibility/ignite-versions/2.1.0/pom.xml
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5974/files#diff-3c44ef223c31de9ff1e10bd7699cbcdc
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think such representing of Ignite product version is more
> > > > > cleaner
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > existing approach with Java classes with dependencies and
> > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > dependecy
> > > > > > > > > > management.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway. I don't like the idea to implement something new
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > improving the existing.
> > > > > > > > > > If you have concrete proposals how to improve current
> > > framework
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > share it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 19 февр. 2019 г. в 19:11, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > a...@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +5,327 −59
> > > > > > > > > > > What about the current compatibility framework?
> > > > > > > > > > > I see no removal or updates.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Each new version is represented by a single pom
> > > > > > > > > > > Sound not good.
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share examples for each feature you
> > > > mentioned?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway. I don't like the idea to implement something new
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > improving the existing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:48 PM Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > > > > > jokse...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion about replacement
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > persistence compatibility test framework with the newer
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The main purpose of that action is simplifying
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > development and support.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The current version of the test framework has 3
> > > > > disadvantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It's uncomfortable to add and support new versions
> > of
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > product.
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a new version has released a developer must
> > manually
> > > > add
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > methods to all existing test suites to support the new
> > > > > product
> > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Manual maven dependency through java api.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If a new version of Ignite product has some specific
> > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > (like H2) a developer should take care about and
> > manually
> > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > using java api.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) It doesn't cover the case when some code which works
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > version will not work on older versions due to
> > > > > compile/runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > incompatibility.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A new version of the framework that is under
> > development
> > > > > right
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't have such problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a list of key features and possibilities:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) One codebase - multiple versions support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The key feature of the new framework is significant
> > > > > simplifying
> > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > supporting the new versions of Ignite product.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Each new version is represented by a single pom file
> > that
> > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies of specific version (core, indexing,
> > etc.).
> > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > subdependecies
> > > > > > > > > > > > like H2 are covered by Maven automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > To add a new version for compatibility a developer just
> > > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > a new
> > > > > > > > > > > > pom file with a new version of Ignite. All existing
> > tests
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > automatically detect the new version and will run tests
> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > version without additional changes. This feature covers
> > > p.
> > > > 1
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > existing framework.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Unified API to access and run code on old and new
> > > > versions
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Each of Ignite instance is represented by remote JVM
> > > with a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > interaction - running abstract closures. Each closure
> > is
> > > > > just a
> > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > implement a "runner interface". Each closure object is
> > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > > > through Xstream library and executed on remote Ignite
> > > JVM.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > gives unified access to interact with both old and new
> > > > > versions
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > and simplifies overall tests development.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Ignite versions support for closures. Sometimes a
> > > > closure
> > > > > > > > > couldn't be
> > > > > > > > > > > > run on newer or older Ignite version due to
> > > compile/runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > incompatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > of that code. To resolve this problem a special
> > > annotation
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This annotation named as "@Since" contains minimal
> > > possible
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > product
> > > > > > > > > > > > version where annotated closure can be compiled and
> > run.
> > > > Such
> > > > > > > > > closures
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > processed on Ignite versions compile phase and this
> > makes
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > possible to
> > > > > > > > > > > > use one closure for multiple Ignite versions without
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes. Closures and versioning resolve p. 3 of the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > framework.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11133
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to hear any opinions about the new
> > > framework.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
