Github user karanmehta93 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/307#discussion_r127757305
--- Diff:
src/java/test/org/apache/zookeeper/server/ZooKeeperServerMainTest.java ---
@@ -138,14 +145,56 @@ void delete(File f) throws IOException {
ServerCnxnFactory getCnxnFactory() {
return main.getCnxnFactory();
}
+
}
- public static class TestZKSMain extends ZooKeeperServerMain {
+ public static class TestZKSMain extends ZooKeeperServerMain {
+
+ private ServerStats serverStats;
+
+ @Override
+ public ZooKeeperServer getZooKeeperServer(FileTxnSnapLog txnLog,
ServerConfig config, ZKDatabase zkDb) {
+ ZooKeeperServer zooKeeperServer =
super.getZooKeeperServer(txnLog, config, zkDb);
+ serverStats = zooKeeperServer.serverStats();
+ return zooKeeperServer;
+ }
+
+ @Override
public void shutdown() {
super.shutdown();
}
}
+ // Test for ZOOKEEPER-2770 ZooKeeper slow operation log
+ @Test
+ public void testRequestWarningThreshold() throws IOException,
KeeperException, InterruptedException {
+ ClientBase.setupTestEnv();
+
+ final int CLIENT_PORT = PortAssignment.unique();
+
+ MainThread main = new MainThread(CLIENT_PORT, true, null, 0);
+ main.start();
+
+ Assert.assertTrue("waiting for server being up",
+ ClientBase.waitForServerUp("127.0.0.1:" + CLIENT_PORT,
+ CONNECTION_TIMEOUT));
+ // Get the stats object from the ZooKeeperServer to keep track of
high latency requests.
+ ServerStats stats = main.main.serverStats;
+
+ ZooKeeper zk = new ZooKeeper("127.0.0.1:" + CLIENT_PORT,
+ ClientBase.CONNECTION_TIMEOUT, this);
+
+ zk.create("/foo1", "foobar".getBytes(), Ids.OPEN_ACL_UNSAFE,
+ CreateMode.PERSISTENT);
+
+ Assert.assertEquals(new String(zk.getData("/foo1", null, null)),
"foobar");
+ // It takes a while for the counter to get updated sometimes, this
is added to reduce flakyness
+ Thread.sleep(1000);
--- End diff --
@tdunning Yes a conditional timeout is a better option.
From what I understand, the failure can be cause in test-only scenario
where there is no physical network between client and server, which sometimes
results in client getting back the acknowledge and the server is just yet to
complete incrementing the count. IMO, it is not possible in actual cluster.
> Would this be susceptible to a sync() to force the test to come up to
date with the leader?
I am not sure what you mean by this. Could you please explain?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
