Failing Tests 2016-07-26 [cassandra-3.9]

[Josh McKenzie]

So today's report looks a little rough. Had the following come up:

   - Extensive timeouts on testall. We've seen this before and a re-run
   usually resolves it. Do we think this might be a provisioning / hardware
   limitation problem? Are the tests too long / too close to the boundary on
   runtime and need to be optimized? Perhaps they're flaky and hang?
   - cassandra-3.9_novnode_dtest didn't kick off last night. It's set to a
   midnight SCM pull and we had changes commit to the branch yesterday, so not
   sure what's up with that. Scheduled a manual run.
   - CASSANDRA-12235 
   still needs triage. Looks like it's trivial (from the description).


org.apache.cassandra.cql3.ViewFilteringTest.testClusteringKeyFilteringRestrictions

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.ViewFilteringTest.testMVCreationSelectRestrictions

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.ViewTest.testPrimaryKeyOnlyTable

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.validation.entities.UFTest.testDropKeyspaceContainingFunctionDropsPreparedStatementsWithDelayedValues

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.validation.entities.UFTest.testJavaFunctionArgumentTypeMismatch

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.validation.operations.AggregationTest.testJavaAggregateSimple

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.cql3.validation.operations.SelectTest.testSelectOnCompositeInvalid

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.db.lifecycle.LogTransactionTest.testObsoletedDataFileUpdateTimeChanged-compression

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
org.apache.cassandra.index.internal.CassandraIndexTest.indexOnNonFrozenSetWithReplaceOperation

Timeout - probably env. Re-running.
cdc_test.TestCDC.test_cdc_data_available_in_cdc_raw

11811 blambov
rebuild_test.TestRebuild.simple_rebuild_test

11687 ymorishita
offline_tools_test.TestOfflineTools.sstablelevelreset_test

11235 Needs Triage
cassandra-3.9_novnode_dtest - didn't run last night ? ? Started manually
cassandra-3.9_dtest_upgrade -> 74 failures 12236 Patch available, waiting
on test runs and review
Assuming 12236 fixes most or all of our upgrade woes and the testall was a
flaky run, we're down to 3 + whatever fails on novnode_dtest, so making
progress!

~Josh

Re: [VOTE RESULT] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

[Brandon Williams]

For completeness, Jake and Pavel are the other two.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
wrote:

> Sorry (: Only see yours, Dave’s, and mine in my client. Apparently I’ve
> trashed the email chain at some point.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 26 July 2016 at 23:48:49, Brandon Williams (dri...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with
> Jonathan.)
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> > interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
> >
> > Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
> > binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained.
> >
> > I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’.
> >
> > As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to allow
> PMC
> > to change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, have just
> returned,
> > and need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new comments).
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release
> > target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time.
> >
> > With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed.
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Michael Shuler
> >
> > On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > > I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay 3.8
> more
> > > we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is scheduled. Which
> > > doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing we're supposed to do in
> > 3.9.
> > >
> > > All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less
> confusing
> > > than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of ignoring a
> whole
> > > bunch of test failures and hoping they don't mean anything, because we
> > just
> > > had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not less.
> > >
> > > So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to
> > > avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or
> > 3.9
> > > for September.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the
> > >> next release, if this indeed were significant enough.
> > >>
> > >> So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship.
> > >> Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with
> 3.9
> > >> still following up on schedule.
> > >> Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the
> > issue
> > >> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever
> > time
> > >> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on.
> > >>
> > >> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m
> fine
> > >> with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> AY
> > >>
> > >> On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I see the alternatives as:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Release this as 3.8
> > >>> 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule
> > >>> 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine
> > with
> > >> either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3.
> because I
> > >> suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing
> > that
> > >> 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions
> > released
> > >> more or less in lockstep).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko <
> alek...@apache.org
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being
> extremely
> >  delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off
> just
> >  pushing it.
> > 
> >  Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I
> > want
> > >>> to
> >  remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and
> only
> >  require a majority of binding votes,
> >  http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
> > 
> >  --
> >  AY
> > 
> >  On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com
> )
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >  Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of
> >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236.
> > 
> >  I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily
> > >> break
> >  in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short
> > >>> time-frame
> >  until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in 

Re: [VOTE RESULT] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

Sorry (: Only see yours, Dave’s, and mine in my client. Apparently I’ve trashed 
the email chain at some point.

-- 
AY

On 26 July 2016 at 23:48:49, Brandon Williams (dri...@gmail.com) wrote:

Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with  
Jonathan.)  

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko   
wrote:  

> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you  
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).  
>  
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the  
> binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained.  
>  
> I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’.  
>  
> As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to allow PMC  
> to change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, have just returned,  
> and need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new comments).  
>  
> --  
> AY  
>  
> On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:  
>  
> Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release  
> target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time.  
>  
> With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed.  
>  
> --  
> Kind regards,  
> Michael Shuler  
>  
> On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:  
> > I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay 3.8 more  
> > we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is scheduled. Which  
> > doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing we're supposed to do in  
> 3.9.  
> >  
> > All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less confusing  
> > than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of ignoring a whole  
> > bunch of test failures and hoping they don't mean anything, because we  
> just  
> > had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not less.  
> >  
> > So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to  
> > avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or  
> 3.9  
> > for September.  
> >  
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko   
> > wrote:  
> >  
> >> What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the  
> >> next release, if this indeed were significant enough.  
> >>  
> >> So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship.  
> >> Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with 3.9  
> >> still following up on schedule.  
> >> Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the  
> issue  
> >> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever  
> time  
> >> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on.  
> >>  
> >> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m fine  
> >> with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far.  
> >>  
> >> --  
> >> AY  
> >>  
> >> On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)  
> >> wrote:  
> >>  
> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis   
> wrote:  
> >>  
> >>> I see the alternatives as:  
> >>>  
> >>> 1. Release this as 3.8  
> >>> 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule  
> >>> 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead  
> >>>  
> >>  
> >> I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine  
> with  
> >> either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3. because I  
> >> suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing  
> that  
> >> 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions  
> released  
> >> more or less in lockstep).  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>>  
> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko  >  
> >>> wrote:  
> >>>  
>  I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely  
>  delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just  
>  pushing it.  
>   
>  Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I  
> want  
> >>> to  
>  remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only  
>  require a majority of binding votes,  
>  http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes  
>   
>  --  
>  AY  
>   
>  On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)  
>  wrote:  
>   
>  Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of  
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236.  
>   
>  I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily  
> >> break  
>  in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short  
> >>> time-frame  
>  until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in particular that in the test  
>  report, there is 74! failures in the upgrade tests (for reference the  
> >> 3.7  
>  test report had only 2 upgrade tests failure both 

Re: [VOTE RESULT] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

[Brandon Williams]

Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with
Jonathan.)

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
wrote:

> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
>
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
> binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained.
>
> I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’.
>
> As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to allow PMC
> to change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, have just returned,
> and need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new comments).
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release
> target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time.
>
> With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Michael Shuler
>
> On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay 3.8 more
> > we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is scheduled. Which
> > doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing we're supposed to do in
> 3.9.
> >
> > All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less confusing
> > than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of ignoring a whole
> > bunch of test failures and hoping they don't mean anything, because we
> just
> > had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not less.
> >
> > So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to
> > avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or
> 3.9
> > for September.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the
> >> next release, if this indeed were significant enough.
> >>
> >> So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship.
> >> Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with 3.9
> >> still following up on schedule.
> >> Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the
> issue
> >> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever
> time
> >> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on.
> >>
> >> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m fine
> >> with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far.
> >>
> >> --
> >> AY
> >>
> >> On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I see the alternatives as:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Release this as 3.8
> >>> 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule
> >>> 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine
> with
> >> either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3. because I
> >> suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing
> that
> >> 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions
> released
> >> more or less in lockstep).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely
>  delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just
>  pushing it.
> 
>  Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I
> want
> >>> to
>  remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only
>  require a majority of binding votes,
>  http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
> 
>  --
>  AY
> 
>  On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)
>  wrote:
> 
>  Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236.
> 
>  I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily
> >> break
>  in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short
> >>> time-frame
>  until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in particular that in the test
>  report, there is 74! failures in the upgrade tests (for reference the
> >> 3.7
>  test report had only 2 upgrade tests failure both with open tickets).
> >>> Given
>  that we have a known problem during upgrade, I don't really buy the
> "We
> >>> are
>  assuming these are due to a recent downsize in instance size that
> these
>  tests run on" and that suggest to me the problem is not too minor.
> 
> 
>  On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Dave Brosius <
> >> dbros...@mebigfatguy.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 

Re: [VOTE RESULT] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you interpret 
Jonathan’s emails as such).

Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the 
binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained.

I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’.

As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to allow PMC to 
change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, have just returned, and 
need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new comments).

-- 
AY

On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:

Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release  
target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time.  

With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed.  

--  
Kind regards,  
Michael Shuler  

On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:  
> I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay 3.8 more  
> we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is scheduled. Which  
> doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing we're supposed to do in 3.9.  
>  
> All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less confusing  
> than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of ignoring a whole  
> bunch of test failures and hoping they don't mean anything, because we just  
> had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not less.  
>  
> So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to  
> avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or 3.9  
> for September.  
>  
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko   
> wrote:  
>  
>> What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the  
>> next release, if this indeed were significant enough.  
>>  
>> So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship.  
>> Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with 3.9  
>> still following up on schedule.  
>> Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the issue  
>> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever time  
>> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on.  
>>  
>> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m fine  
>> with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far.  
>>  
>> --  
>> AY  
>>  
>> On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)  
>> wrote:  
>>  
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:  
>>  
>>> I see the alternatives as:  
>>>  
>>> 1. Release this as 3.8  
>>> 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule  
>>> 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead  
>>>  
>>  
>> I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine with  
>> either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3. because I  
>> suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing that  
>> 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions released  
>> more or less in lockstep).  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko   
>>> wrote:  
>>>  
 I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely  
 delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just  
 pushing it.  
  
 Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I want  
>>> to  
 remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only  
 require a majority of binding votes,  
 http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes  
  
 --  
 AY  
  
 On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com)  
 wrote:  
  
 Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of  
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236.  
  
 I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily  
>> break  
 in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short  
>>> time-frame  
 until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in particular that in the test  
 report, there is 74! failures in the upgrade tests (for reference the  
>> 3.7  
 test report had only 2 upgrade tests failure both with open tickets).  
>>> Given  
 that we have a known problem during upgrade, I don't really buy the "We  
>>> are  
 assuming these are due to a recent downsize in instance size that these  
 tests run on" and that suggest to me the problem is not too minor.  
  
  
 On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Dave Brosius <  
>> dbros...@mebigfatguy.com>  
 wrote:  
  
> +1  
>  
>  
> On 07/20/2016 05:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:  
>  
>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.  
>>  
>> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c  
>> Git:  
>>  
>>  
  
>>>