[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15738383#comment-15738383
]
Sean Owen commented on SPARK-9487:
----------------------------------
Yes, that probably means the test changes aren't quite robust in their new
form. Getting them to pass locally and on Jenkins indicates they're at least
general enough to pass across both envs. And of course we have to get them to
pass on Jenkins. It can be hard to debug; try a different machine? try
loosening conditions? you can push changes to a WIP PR to see how Jenkins
treats them. I think we need to bring this to a conclusion though. Right now
I'm not clear this solves enough of a problem to bother with, so I'm inclined
to close it.
> Use the same num. worker threads in Scala/Python unit tests
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-9487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9487
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: PySpark, Spark Core, SQL, Tests
> Affects Versions: 1.5.0
> Reporter: Xiangrui Meng
> Labels: starter
> Attachments: ContextCleanerSuiteResults, HeartbeatReceiverSuiteResults
>
>
> In Python we use `local[4]` for unit tests, while in Scala/Java we use
> `local[2]` and `local` for some unit tests in SQL, MLLib, and other
> components. If the operation depends on partition IDs, e.g., random number
> generator, this will lead to different result in Python and Scala/Java. It
> would be nice to use the same number in all unit tests.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
