Hello, Maxim. Thanks for writing down the minutes.
There is no such thing as «Nikolay team» on the dev-list. I propose to focus on product requirements and what we want to gain from the framework instead of taking into account the needs of some team. Can you, please, write down your version of requirements so we can reach a consensus on that and therefore move to the discussion of the implementation? > 6 июля 2020 г., в 11:18, Max Shonichev <mshon...@yandex.ru> написал(а): > > Yes, Denis, > > common ground seems to be as follows: > Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov would try to prepare and run PoC over > physical hosts and share benchmark results. In the meantime, while I strongly > believe that dockerized approach to benchmarking is a road to misleading and > false positives, I'll prepare a PoC of Tiden in dockerized environment to > support 'fast development prototyping' usecase Nikolay team insist on. It > should be a matter of few days. > > As a side note, I've run Anton PoC locally and would like to have some > comments about results: > > Test system: Ubuntu 18.04, docker 19.03.6 > Test commands: > > > git clone -b ignite-ducktape g...@github.com:anton-vinogradov/ignite.git > cd ignite > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true > -Pall-java,licenses,lgpl,examples,!spark-2.4,!spark,!scala > cd modules/ducktests/tests/docker > ./run_tests.sh > > Test results: > ==================================================================================================== > SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS) > ducktape version: 0.7.7 > session_id: 2020-07-05--004 > run time: 7 minutes 36.360 seconds > tests run: 5 > passed: 3 > failed: 2 > ignored: 0 > ==================================================================================================== > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1 > status: FAIL > run time: 3 minutes 12.232 seconds > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6 > status: FAIL > run time: 1 minute 33.076 seconds > > > Is it OK for those tests to fail? Attached is full test report > > > On 02.07.2020 17:46, Denis Magda wrote: >> Folks, >> Please share the summary of that Slack conversation here for records once >> you find common ground. >> - >> Denis >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Igniters. >>> >>> All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion are >>> welcome into slack channel - >>> https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> написал(а): >>>> >>>> Max, >>>> Thanks for joining us. >>>> >>>>> 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on >>>>> dependencies being deployed by external scripts. >>>> No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and >>> orchestration. >>>> All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. >>>> As to Ducktests: >>>> Docker is responsible for deployments during development. >>>> CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly checks. >>> It's up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. >>>> Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. >>>> >>>>> 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel >>> fashion, >>>>> while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. >>>> No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark >>> [1] for details. >>>> >>>>> if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some >>>>> deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with >>>>> Ansible or Chef. >>>> Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. >>>> How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be >>> compatible with Tiden? >>>> >>>>> You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies >>>>> into one uber-image ... >>>> and >>>>> I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed >>>>> virtual networks. >>>> It is very important not to confuse the test's development (docker image >>> you're talking about) and real deployment. >>>> >>>>> If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does >>>> All actions can be performed in parallel. >>>> See how Ducktests [2] starts cluster in parallel for example. >>>> >>>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-59adde2a2ab7dc17aea6c65153dfcda7R84 >>>> [2] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-d6a7b19f30f349d426b8894a40389cf5R79 >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Hello, Maxim. >>>> >>>>> 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on >>> dependencies being deployed by external scripts >>>> >>>> Why do you think that maintaining deploy scripts coupled with the >>> testing framework is an advantage? >>>> I thought we want to see and maintain deployment scripts separate from >>> the testing framework. >>>> >>>>> 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel >>> fashion, while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. >>>> >>>> Can you, please, clarify, what actions do you have in mind? >>>> And why we want to execute them concurrently? >>>> Ignite node start, Client application execution can be done concurrently >>> with the ducktape approach. >>>> >>>>> If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some >>> deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with >>> Ansible or Chef >>>> >>>> We shouldn’t take some user approach as an argument in this discussion. >>> Let’s discuss a general approach for all users of the Ignite. Anyway, what >>> is wrong with the external deployment script approach? >>>> >>>> We, as a community, should provide several ways to run integration tests >>> out-of-the-box AND the ability to customize deployment regarding the user >>> landscape. >>>> >>>>> You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all >>> dependencies into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant >>> solution however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. >>>> >>>> Docker image should be used only by the Ignite developers to test >>> something locally. >>>> It’s not intended for some real-world testing. >>>> >>>> The main issue with the Tiden that I see, it tested and maintained as a >>> closed source solution. >>>> This can lead to the hard to solve problems when we start using and >>> maintaining it as an open-source solution. >>>> Like, how many developers used Tiden? And how many of developers were >>> not authors of the Tiden itself? >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2 июля 2020 г., в 12:30, Max Shonichev <mshon...@yandex.ru> >>> написал(а): >>>>> >>>>> Anton, Nikolay, >>>>> >>>>> Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or >>> don't like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. >>>>> >>>>> If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is >>> meaningless. However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons >>> carefully. >>>>> >>>>> As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape >>> and tiden is that: >>>>> >>>>> 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on >>> dependencies being deployed by external scripts. >>>>> >>>>> 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel >>> fashion, while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. >>>>> >>>>> As for me, these are very important properties for distributed testing >>> framework. >>>>> >>>>> First property let us easily reuse tiden in existing infrastructures, >>> for example, during Zookeeper IEP testing at Sberbank site we used the same >>> tiden scripts that we use in our lab, the only change was putting a list of >>> hosts into config. >>>>> >>>>> If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some >>> deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with >>> Ansible or Chef. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all >>> dependencies into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant >>> solution, >>>>> however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. >>>>> >>>>> I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed >>> virtual networks. We used to go that way, but quickly found that it is more >>> of the hype than real work. In real environments, there are problems with >>> routing, DNS, multicast and broadcast traffic, and many others, that turn >>> docker-based distributed solution into a fragile hard-to-maintain monster. >>>>> >>>>> Please, if you believe otherwise, perform a run of your PoC over at >>> least two physical hosts and share results with us. >>>>> >>>>> If you consider that one physical docker host is enough, please, don't >>> overlook that we want to run real scale scenarios, with 50-100 cache >>> groups, persistence enabled and a millions of keys loaded. >>>>> >>>>> Practical limit for such configurations is 4-6 nodes per single >>> physical host. Otherwise, tests become flaky due to resource starvation. >>>>> >>>>> Please, if you believe otherwise, perform at least a 10 of runs of >>> your PoC with other tests running at TC (we're targeting TeamCity, right?) >>> and share results so we could check if the numbers are reproducible. >>>>> >>>>> I stress this once more: functional integration tests are OK to run in >>> Docker and CI, but running benchmarks in Docker is a big NO GO. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Second property let us write tests that require real-parallel actions >>> over hosts. >>>>> >>>>> For example, agreed scenario for PME benchmarkduring "PME optimization >>> stream" was as follows: >>>>> >>>>> - 10 server nodes, preloaded with 1M of keys >>>>> - 4 client nodes perform transactional load (client nodes physically >>> separated from server nodes) >>>>> - during load: >>>>> -- 5 server nodes stopped in parallel >>>>> -- after 1 minute, all 5 nodes are started in parallel >>>>> - load stopped, logs are analysed for exchange times. >>>>> >>>>> If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does, >>> then partition map exchange merge would not happen and we could not have >>> measured PME optimizations for that case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These are limitations of ducktape that we believe as a more important >>>>> argument "against" than you provide "for". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 30.06.2020 14:58, Anton Vinogradov wrote: >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> First, I've created PR [1] with ducktests improvements >>>>>> PR contains the following changes >>>>>> - Pme-free switch proof-benchmark (2.7.6 vs master) >>>>>> - Ability to check (compare with) previous releases (eg. 2.7.6 & 2.8) >>>>>> - Global refactoring >>>>>> -- benchmarks javacode simplification >>>>>> -- services python and java classes code deduplication >>>>>> -- fail-fast checks for java and python (eg. application should >>> explicitly write it finished with success) >>>>>> -- simple results extraction from tests and benchmarks >>>>>> -- javacode now configurable from tests/benchmarks >>>>>> -- proper SIGTERM handling at javacode (eg. it may finish last >>> operation and log results) >>>>>> -- docker volume now marked as delegated to increase execution speed >>> for mac & win users >>>>>> -- Ignite cluster now start in parallel (start speed-up) >>>>>> -- Ignite can be configured at test/benchmark >>>>>> - full and module assembly scripts added >>>>> Great job done! But let me remind one of Apache Ignite principles: >>>>> week of thinking save months of development. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Second, I'd like to propose to accept ducktests [2] (ducktape >>> integration) as a target "PoC check & real topology benchmarking tool". >>>>>> Ducktape pros >>>>>> - Developed for distributed system by distributed system developers. >>>>> So does Tiden >>>>> >>>>>> - Developed since 2014, stable. >>>>> Tiden is also pretty stable, and development start date is not a good >>> argument, for example pytest is since 2004, pytest-xdist (plugin for >>> distributed testing) is since 2010, but we don't see it as a alternative at >>> all. >>>>> >>>>>> - Proven usability by usage at Kafka. >>>>> Tiden is proven usable by usage at GridGain and Sberbank deployments. >>>>> Core, storage, sql and tx teams use benchmark results provided by >>> Tiden on a daily basis. >>>>> >>>>>> - Dozens of dozens tests and benchmarks at Kafka as a great example >>> pack. >>>>> We'll donate some of our suites to Ignite as I've mentioned in >>> previous letter. >>>>> >>>>>> - Built-in Docker support for rapid development and checks. >>>>> False, there's no specific 'docker support' in ducktape itself, you >>> just wrap it in docker by yourself, because ducktape is lacking deployment >>> abilities. >>>>> >>>>>> - Great for CI automation. >>>>> False, there's no specific CI-enabled features in ducktape. Tiden, on >>> the other hand, provide generic xUnit reporting format, which is supported >>> by both TeamCity and Jenkins. Also, instead of using private keys, Tiden >>> can use SSH agent, which is also great for CI, because both >>>>> TeamCity and Jenkins store keys in secret storage available only for >>> ssh-agent and only for the time of the test. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> As an additional motivation, at least 3 teams >>>>>> - IEP-45 team (to check crash-recovery speed-up (discovery and Zabbix >>> speed-up)) >>>>>> - Ignite SE Plugins team (to check plugin's features does not >>> slow-down or broke AI features) >>>>>> - Ignite SE QA team (to append already developed smoke/load/failover >>> tests to AI codebase) >>>>> >>>>> Please, before recommending your tests to other teams, provide proofs >>>>> that your tests are reproducible in real environment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> now, wait for ducktest merge to start checking cases they working on >>> in AI way. >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> Let us together review both solutions, we'll try to run your tests in >>> our lab, and you'll try to at least checkout tiden and see if same tests >>> can be implemented with it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967 >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-ducktape >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:22 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org >>> <mailto:nizhi...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>> Hello, Maxim. >>>>>> Thank you for so detailed explanation. >>>>>> Can we put the content of this discussion somewhere on the wiki? >>>>>> So It doesn’t get lost. >>>>>> I divide the answer in several parts. From the requirements to the >>>>>> implementation. >>>>>> So, if we agreed on the requirements we can proceed with the >>>>>> discussion of the implementation. >>>>>> 1. Requirements: >>>>>> The main goal I want to achieve is *reproducibility* of the tests. >>>>>> I’m sick and tired with the zillions of flaky, rarely failed, and >>>>>> almost never failed tests in Ignite codebase. >>>>>> We should start with the simplest scenarios that will be as >>> reliable >>>>>> as steel :) >>>>>> I want to know for sure: >>>>>> - Is this PR makes rebalance quicker or not? >>>>>> - Is this PR makes PME quicker or not? >>>>>> So, your description of the complex test scenario looks as a next >>>>>> step to me. >>>>>> Anyway, It’s cool we already have one. >>>>>> The second goal is to have a strict test lifecycle as we have in >>>>>> JUnit and similar frameworks. >>>>>> > It covers production-like deployment and running a scenarios >>> over >>>>>> a single database instance. >>>>>> Do you mean «single cluster» or «single host»? >>>>>> 2. Existing tests: >>>>>> > A Combinator suite allows to run set of operations concurrently >>>>>> over given database instance. >>>>>> > A Consumption suite allows to run a set production-like actions >>>>>> over given set of Ignite/GridGain versions and compare test metrics >>>>>> across versions >>>>>> > A Yardstick suite >>>>>> > A Stress suite that simulates hardware environment degradation >>>>>> > An Ultimate, DR and Compatibility suites that performs >>> functional >>>>>> regression testing >>>>>> > Regression >>>>>> Great news that we already have so many choices for testing! >>>>>> Mature test base is a big +1 for Tiden. >>>>>> 3. Comparison: >>>>>> > Criteria: Test configuration >>>>>> > Ducktape: single JSON string for all tests >>>>>> > Tiden: any number of YaML config files, command line option for >>>>>> fine-grained test configuration, ability to select/modify tests >>>>>> behavior based on Ignite version. >>>>>> 1. Many YAML files can be hard to maintain. >>>>>> 2. In ducktape, you can set parameters via «—parameters» option. >>>>>> Please, take a look at the doc [1] >>>>>> > Criteria: Cluster control >>>>>> > Tiden: additionally can address cluster as a whole and execute >>>>>> remote commands in parallel. >>>>>> It seems we implement this ability in the PoC, already. >>>>>> > Criteria: Test assertions >>>>>> > Tiden: simple asserts, also few customized assertion helpers. >>>>>> > Ducktape: simple asserts. >>>>>> Can you, please, be more specific. >>>>>> What helpers do you have in mind? >>>>>> Ducktape has an asserts that waits for logfile messages or some >>>>>> process finish. >>>>>> > Criteria: Test reporting >>>>>> > Ducktape: limited to its own text/HTML format >>>>>> Ducktape have >>>>>> 1. Text reporter >>>>>> 2. Customizable HTML reporter >>>>>> 3. JSON reporter. >>>>>> We can show JSON with the any template or tool. >>>>>> > Criteria: Provisioning and deployment >>>>>> > Ducktape: can provision subset of hosts from cluster for test >>>>>> needs. However, that means, that test can’t be scaled without test >>>>>> code changes. Does not do any deploy, relies on external means, >>> e.g. >>>>>> pre-packaged in docker image, as in PoC. >>>>>> This is not true. >>>>>> 1. We can set explicit test parameters(node number) via parameters. >>>>>> We can increase client count of cluster size without test code >>> changes. >>>>>> 2. We have many choices for the test environment. These choices are >>>>>> tested and used in other projects: >>>>>> * docker >>>>>> * vagrant >>>>>> * private cloud(ssh access) >>>>>> * ec2 >>>>>> Please, take a look at Kafka documentation [2] >>>>>> > I can continue more on this, but it should be enough for now: >>>>>> We need to go deeper! :) >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>> https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html#options >>>>>> [2] >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/tests#ec2-quickstart >>>>>> > 9 июня 2020 г., в 17:25, Max A. Shonichev <mshon...@yandex.ru >>>>>> <mailto:mshon...@yandex.ru>> написал(а): >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Greetings, Nikolay, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > First of all, thank you for you great effort preparing PoC of >>>>>> integration testing to Ignite community. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It’s a shame Ignite did not have at least some such tests yet, >>>>>> however, GridGain, as a major contributor to Apache Ignite had a >>>>>> profound collection of in-house tools to perform integration and >>>>>> performance testing for years already and while we slowly consider >>>>>> sharing our expertise with the community, your initiative makes us >>>>>> drive that process a bit faster, thanks a lot! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I reviewed your PoC and want to share a little about what we do >>>>>> on our part, why and how, hope it would help community take proper >>>>>> course. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > First I’ll do a brief overview of what decisions we made and >>> what >>>>>> we do have in our private code base, next I’ll describe what we >>> have >>>>>> already donated to the public and what we plan public next, then >>>>>> I’ll compare both approaches highlighting deficiencies in order to >>>>>> spur public discussion on the matter. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It might seem strange to use Python to run Bash to run Java >>>>>> applications because that introduces IT industry best of breed’ – >>>>>> the Python dependency hell – to the Java application code base. The >>>>>> only strangest decision one can made is to use Maven to run Docker >>>>>> to run Bash to run Python to run Bash to run Java, but desperate >>>>>> times call for desperate measures I guess. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > There are Java-based solutions for integration testing exists, >>>>>> e.g. Testcontainers [1], Arquillian [2], etc, and they might go >>> well >>>>>> for Ignite community CI pipelines by them selves. But we also >>> wanted >>>>>> to run performance tests and benchmarks, like the dreaded PME >>>>>> benchmark, and this is solved by totally different set of tools in >>>>>> Java world, e.g. Jmeter [3], OpenJMH [4], Gatling [5], etc. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Speaking specifically about benchmarking, Apache Ignite >>> community >>>>>> already has Yardstick [6], and there’s nothing wrong with writing >>>>>> PME benchmark using Yardstick, but we also wanted to be able to run >>>>>> scenarios like this: >>>>>> > - put an X load to a Ignite database; >>>>>> > - perform an Y set of operations to check how Ignite copes with >>>>>> operations under load. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > And yes, we also wanted applications under test be deployed >>> ‘like >>>>>> in a production’, e.g. distributed over a set of hosts. This arises >>>>>> questions about provisioning and nodes affinity which I’ll cover in >>>>>> detail later. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So we decided to put a little effort to build a simple tool to >>>>>> cover different integration and performance scenarios, and our QA >>>>>> lab first attempt was PoC-Tester [7], currently open source for all >>>>>> but for reporting web UI. It’s a quite simple to use 95% Java-based >>>>>> tool targeted to be run on a pre-release QA stage. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It covers production-like deployment and running a scenarios >>> over >>>>>> a single database instance. PoC-Tester scenarios consists of a >>>>>> sequence of tasks running sequentially or in parallel. After all >>>>>> tasks complete, or at any time during test, user can run logs >>>>>> collection task, logs are checked against exceptions and a summary >>>>>> of found issues and task ops/latency statistics is generated at the >>>>>> end of scenario. One of the main PoC-Tester features is its >>>>>> fire-and-forget approach to task managing. That is, you can deploy >>> a >>>>>> grid and left it running for weeks, periodically firing some tasks >>>>>> onto it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > During earliest stages of PoC-Tester development it becomes >>> quite >>>>>> clear that Java application development is a tedious process and >>>>>> architecture decisions you take during development are slow and >>> hard >>>>>> to change. >>>>>> > For example, scenarios like this >>>>>> > - deploy two instances of GridGain with master-slave data >>>>>> replication configured; >>>>>> > - put a load on master; >>>>>> > - perform checks on slave, >>>>>> > or like this: >>>>>> > - preload a 1Tb of data by using your favorite tool of choice to >>>>>> an Apache Ignite of version X; >>>>>> > - run a set of functional tests running Apache Ignite version Y >>>>>> over preloaded data, >>>>>> > do not fit well in the PoC-Tester workflow. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So, this is why we decided to use Python as a generic scripting >>>>>> language of choice. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Pros: >>>>>> > - quicker prototyping and development cycles >>>>>> > - easier to find DevOps/QA engineer with Python skills than one >>>>>> with Java skills >>>>>> > - used extensively all over the world for DevOps/CI pipelines >>> and >>>>>> thus has rich set of libraries for all possible integration uses >>> cases. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Cons: >>>>>> > - Nightmare with dependencies. Better stick to specific >>>>>> language/libraries version. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Comparing alternatives for Python-based testing framework we >>> have >>>>>> considered following requirements, somewhat similar to what you’ve >>>>>> mentioned for Confluent [8] previously: >>>>>> > - should be able run locally or distributed (bare metal or in >>> the >>>>>> cloud) >>>>>> > - should have built-in deployment facilities for applications >>>>>> under test >>>>>> > - should separate test configuration and test code >>>>>> > -- be able to easily reconfigure tests by simple configuration >>>>>> changes >>>>>> > -- be able to easily scale test environment by simple >>>>>> configuration changes >>>>>> > -- be able to perform regression testing by simple switching >>>>>> artifacts under test via configuration >>>>>> > -- be able to run tests with different JDK version by simple >>>>>> configuration changes >>>>>> > - should have human readable reports and/or reporting tools >>>>>> integration >>>>>> > - should allow simple test progress monitoring, one does not >>> want >>>>>> to run 6-hours test to find out that application actually crashed >>>>>> during first hour. >>>>>> > - should allow parallel execution of test actions >>>>>> > - should have clean API for test writers >>>>>> > -- clean API for distributed remote commands execution >>>>>> > -- clean API for deployed applications start / stop and other >>>>>> operations >>>>>> > -- clean API for performing check on results >>>>>> > - should be open source or at least source code should allow >>> ease >>>>>> change or extension >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Back at that time we found no better alternative than to write >>>>>> our own framework, and here goes Tiden [9] as GridGain framework of >>>>>> choice for functional integration and performance testing. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Pros: >>>>>> > - solves all the requirements above >>>>>> > Cons (for Ignite): >>>>>> > - (currently) closed GridGain source >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On top of Tiden we’ve built a set of test suites, some of which >>>>>> you might have heard already. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A Combinator suite allows to run set of operations concurrently >>>>>> over given database instance. Proven to find at least 30+ race >>>>>> conditions and NPE issues. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A Consumption suite allows to run a set production-like actions >>>>>> over given set of Ignite/GridGain versions and compare test metrics >>>>>> across versions, like heap/disk/CPU consumption, time to perform >>>>>> actions, like client PME, server PME, rebalancing time, data >>>>>> replication time, etc. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A Yardstick suite is a thin layer of Python glue code to run >>>>>> Apache Ignite pre-release benchmarks set. Yardstick itself has a >>>>>> mediocre deployment capabilities, Tiden solves this easily. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A Stress suite that simulates hardware environment degradation >>>>>> during testing. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > An Ultimate, DR and Compatibility suites that performs >>> functional >>>>>> regression testing of GridGain Ultimate Edition features like >>>>>> snapshots, security, data replication, rolling upgrades, etc. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A Regression and some IEPs testing suites, like IEP-14, IEP-15, >>>>>> etc, etc, etc. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Most of the suites above use another in-house developed Java >>> tool >>>>>> – PiClient – to perform actual loading and miscellaneous operations >>>>>> with Ignite under test. We use py4j Python-Java gateway library to >>>>>> control PiClient instances from the tests. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > When we considered CI, we put TeamCity out of scope, because >>>>>> distributed integration and performance tests tend to run for hours >>>>>> and TeamCity agents are scarce and costly resource. So, bundled >>> with >>>>>> Tiden there is jenkins-job-builder [10] based CI pipelines and >>>>>> Jenkins xUnit reporting. Also, rich web UI tool Ward aggregates >>> test >>>>>> run reports across versions and has built in visualization support >>>>>> for Combinator suite. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > All of the above is currently closed source, but we plan to make >>>>>> it public for community, and publishing Tiden core [9] is the first >>>>>> step on that way. You can review some examples of using Tiden for >>>>>> tests at my repository [11], for start. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Now, let’s compare Ducktape PoC and Tiden. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Language >>>>>> > Tiden: Python, 3.7 >>>>>> > Ducktape: Python, proposes itself as Python 2.7, 3.6, 3.7 >>>>>> compatible, but actually can’t work with Python 3.7 due to broken >>>>>> Zmq dependency. >>>>>> > Comment: Python 3.7 has a much better support for async-style >>>>>> code which might be crucial for distributed application testing. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 1, Ducktape: 0 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Test writers API >>>>>> > Supported integration test framework concepts are basically the >>> same: >>>>>> > - a test controller (test runner) >>>>>> > - a cluster >>>>>> > - a node >>>>>> > - an application (a service in Ducktape terms) >>>>>> > - a test >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 5, Ducktape: 5 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Tests selection and run >>>>>> > Ducktape: suite-package-class-method level selection, internal >>>>>> scheduler allows to run tests in suite in parallel. >>>>>> > Tiden: also suite-package-class-method level selection, >>>>>> additionally allows selecting subset of tests by attribute, >>> parallel >>>>>> runs not built in, but allows merging test reports after different >>> runs. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 2, Ducktape: 2 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Test configuration >>>>>> > Ducktape: single JSON string for all tests >>>>>> > Tiden: any number of YaML config files, command line option for >>>>>> fine-grained test configuration, ability to select/modify tests >>>>>> behavior based on Ignite version. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 3, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Cluster control >>>>>> > Ducktape: allow execute remote commands by node granularity >>>>>> > Tiden: additionally can address cluster as a whole and execute >>>>>> remote commands in parallel. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 2, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Logs control >>>>>> > Both frameworks have similar builtin support for remote logs >>>>>> collection and grepping. Tiden has built-in plugin that can zip, >>>>>> collect arbitrary log files from arbitrary locations at >>>>>> test/module/suite granularity and unzip if needed, also application >>>>>> API to search / wait for messages in logs. Ducktape allows each >>>>>> service declare its log files location (seemingly does not support >>>>>> logs rollback), and a single entrypoint to collect service logs. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 1, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Test assertions >>>>>> > Tiden: simple asserts, also few customized assertion helpers. >>>>>> > Ducktape: simple asserts. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 2, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Test reporting >>>>>> > Ducktape: limited to its own text/html format >>>>>> > Tiden: provides text report, yaml report for reporting tools >>>>>> integration, XML xUnit report for integration with >>> Jenkins/TeamCity. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 3, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Provisioning and deployment >>>>>> > Ducktape: can provision subset of hosts from cluster for test >>>>>> needs. However, that means, that test can’t be scaled without test >>>>>> code changes. Does not do any deploy, relies on external means, >>> e.g. >>>>>> pre-packaged in docker image, as in PoC. >>>>>> > Tiden: Given a set of hosts, Tiden uses all of them for the >>> test. >>>>>> Provisioning should be done by external means. However, provides a >>>>>> conventional automated deployment routines. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 1, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Criteria: Documentation and Extensibility >>>>>> > Tiden: current API documentation is limited, should change as we >>>>>> go open source. Tiden is easily extensible via hooks and plugins, >>>>>> see example Maven plugin and Gatling application at [11]. >>>>>> > Ducktape: basic documentation at readthedocs.io >>>>>> <http://readthedocs.io>. Codebase is rigid, framework core is >>>>>> tightly coupled and hard to change. The only possible extension >>>>>> mechanism is fork-and-rewrite. >>>>>> > Score: Tiden: 2, Ducktape: 1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I can continue more on this, but it should be enough for now: >>>>>> > Overall score: Tiden: 22, Ducktape: 14. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Time for discussion! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --- >>>>>> > [1] - https://www.testcontainers.org/ >>>>>> > [2] - http://arquillian.org/guides/getting_started/ >>>>>> > [3] - https://jmeter.apache.org/index.html >>>>>> > [4] - https://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jmh/ >>>>>> > [5] - https://gatling.io/docs/current/ >>>>>> > [6] - https://github.com/gridgain/yardstick >>>>>> > [7] - https://github.com/gridgain/poc-tester >>>>>> > [8] - >>>>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/System+Test+Improvements >>>>>> > [9] - https://github.com/gridgain/tiden >>>>>> > [10] - https://pypi.org/project/jenkins-job-builder/ >>>>>> > [11] - https://github.com/mshonichev/tiden_examples >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 25.05.2020 11:09, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: >>>>>> >> Hello, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Branch with duck tape created - >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-ducktape >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Any who are willing to contribute to PoC are welcome. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> 21 мая 2020 г., в 22:33, Nikolay Izhikov >>>>>> <nizhikov....@gmail.com <mailto:nizhikov....@gmail.com>> >>> написал(а): >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Hello, Denis. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> There is no rush with these improvements. >>>>>> >>> We can wait for Maxim proposal and compare two solutions :) >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> 21 мая 2020 г., в 22:24, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org >>>>>> <mailto:dma...@apache.org>> написал(а): >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi Nikolay, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Thanks for kicking off this conversation and sharing your >>>>>> findings with the >>>>>> >>>> results. That's the right initiative. I do agree that Ignite >>>>>> needs to have >>>>>> >>>> an integration testing framework with capabilities listed by >>> you. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> As we discussed privately, I would only check if instead of >>>>>> >>>> Confluent's Ducktape library, we can use an integration >>>>>> testing framework >>>>>> >>>> developed by GridGain for testing of Ignite/GridGain >>> clusters. >>>>>> That >>>>>> >>>> framework has been battle-tested and might be more >>> convenient for >>>>>> >>>> Ignite-specific workloads. Let's wait for @Maksim Shonichev >>>>>> >>>> <mshonic...@gridgain.com <mailto:mshonic...@gridgain.com>> >>> who >>>>>> promised to join this thread once he finishes >>>>>> >>>> preparing the usage examples of the framework. To my >>>>>> knowledge, Max has >>>>>> >>>> already been working on that for several days. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> - >>>>>> >>>> Denis >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov >>>>>> <nizhi...@apache.org <mailto:nizhi...@apache.org>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hello, Igniters. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing >>> of >>>>>> Ignite on >>>>>> >>>>> «real cluster». >>>>>> >>>>> By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: >>>>>> >>>>> * client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. >>>>>> >>>>> * thin clients perform queries from some other hosts >>>>>> >>>>> * etc. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some >>>>>> internal >>>>>> >>>>> Ignite process >>>>>> >>>>> * PME >>>>>> >>>>> * rebalance. >>>>>> >>>>> This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) >>> in >>>>>> 2.7.0 faster >>>>>> >>>>> or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite >>>>>> integration in >>>>>> >>>>> a real-world environment: >>>>>> >>>>> Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. >>>>>> >>>>> I think some ML solutions also should be tested in >>> real-world >>>>>> deployments. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Solution: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache >>> 2.0 >>>>>> license) >>>>>> >>>>> I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on >>> the >>>>>> local >>>>>> >>>>> environment(docker) and it works just fine. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> PoC contains following services: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> * Simple rebalance test: >>>>>> >>>>> Start 2 server nodes, >>>>>> >>>>> Create some data with Ignite client, >>>>>> >>>>> Start one more server node, >>>>>> >>>>> Wait for rebalance finish >>>>>> >>>>> * Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: >>>>>> >>>>> Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, >>>>>> >>>>> Start 1 Ignite server node >>>>>> >>>>> Create some data with Ignite client, >>>>>> >>>>> Check data in application that queries it from >>>>>> Spark. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> All tests are fully automated. >>>>>> >>>>> Logs collection works just fine. >>>>>> >>>>> You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Pros: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to >>>>>> some remote >>>>>> >>>>> repository or similar). >>>>>> >>>>> * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests >>>>>> on different >>>>>> >>>>> JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) >>>>>> >>>>> * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as >>>>>> possible. >>>>>> >>>>> * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily >>>>>> in clusters in >>>>>> >>>>> different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, >>>>>> K8s, Mesos, >>>>>> >>>>> Docker, cloud providers, etc.) >>>>>> >>>>> * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems >>>>>> >>>>> * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open >>>>>> source project - >>>>>> >>>>> Apache Kafka. >>>>>> >>>>> * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) >>>>>> >>>>> * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance >>>>>> results, etc.) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 >>>>>> >>>>> [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape >>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>> https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html >>>>>> >>>>> [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg >>>> >>> >>> >>> > <2020-07-05--004.tar.gz>
