[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15739432#comment-15739432
]
Sean Owen commented on SPARK-9487:
----------------------------------
I think this is going around in circles. You already have an open invitation to
improve tests in any logical subset of the project in order to accomplish this
change in number of worker threads. You're saying you are unable to get them to
pass on Jenkins and unwilling to debug. I don't think there is more guidance to
give here; either you can effect this change or not. If nobody can or seems
willing to try, I think it should be closed, because this really isn't an error
to start with, nor even that suboptimal (excepting that it has revealed a
couple tests could be a little more robust)
> 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: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
