rpuch commented on code in PR #6693:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/6693#discussion_r2401974845
##########
modules/index/src/integrationTest/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/index/ItBuildIndexTest.java:
##########
@@ -213,6 +223,137 @@ private static void changePrimaryReplica(IgniteImpl
currentPrimary) throws Inter
assertThat(sendBuildIndexCommandFuture, willSucceedFast());
}
+ @Test
+ @Disabled("https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-21546";)
+ void writeIntentFromTxAbandonedBeforeShouldNotBeIndexed() throws Exception
{
+ createTable(1, 1);
+
+ disableWriteIntentSwitchExecution();
+
+ // Create and abandon a transaction.
+ int txCoordinatorOrdinal = 2;
+ Transaction tx =
CLUSTER.node(txCoordinatorOrdinal).transactions().begin();
+ insertDataInTransaction(tx, TABLE_NAME, List.of("I0", "I1"), new
Object[]{1, 1});
+
+ CLUSTER.restartNode(txCoordinatorOrdinal);
+
+ createIndex(INDEX_NAME);
+ assertTrue(
+ waitForCondition(() ->
isIndexAvailable(unwrapIgniteImpl(CLUSTER.aliveNode()), INDEX_NAME), 10_000),
+ "Index did not become available in time"
+ );
Review Comment:
How is it bad practice? Also, is it somehow decided that we should move from
`waitForCondition()`?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
