Re: [Question] Using loggers in tests
Thanks Paul, forgot about that. I'll migrate all the tests off of System.out.print and onto LogFixture, I don't think its worth it to create a TestLogger.out since we should all be using loggers anyway. I'll also add a checkstyle check that will cause the build to fail of System.out.print is used anywhere. Thanks, Tim From: Paul RogersSent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:08:28 PM To: dev@drill.apache.org Subject: Re: [Question] Using loggers in tests LogFixture? As illustrated in ExampleTest? This fixture lets you turn on all or selected loggers for the duration of a single test. I used it all the time when debugging. Works great. It works when turning loggers on when the default is that they are off. For whatever reason, I could not get it to work to turn off logging that was enabled in the config file. At one point I did look into adding a custom debug logger that works just like System.out, but is disabled by default. That way, conversion was just a matter of replacing System.out with TestLogger.out which can be done via search/replace. Not sure if I ever checked that in, but it would be trivial to replicate. Thanks, - Paul On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 5:32:49 PM PDT, Timothy Farkas wrote: Hi All, I was wondering if there was a magical way to enable the Slf4j loggers for unit tests without adding a logback-test.xml file into src/test/resources for a submodule in the project? If not, would there by any issues with adding a default logback-test.xml file that has logging disabled by default to each submodule's src/test/resources directory? I'd like to do this in order to discourage the use of System.out.println in tests (and eventually prohibit it completely) by providing an easy to use out of the box alternative. Currently our test logs are polluted by many System.out.print statements and switching to using logging will allow us to have our test messages when we want them, and to disable them when we don't want them. Thanks, Tim
Re: [Question] Using loggers in tests
LogFixture? As illustrated in ExampleTest? This fixture lets you turn on all or selected loggers for the duration of a single test. I used it all the time when debugging. Works great. It works when turning loggers on when the default is that they are off. For whatever reason, I could not get it to work to turn off logging that was enabled in the config file. At one point I did look into adding a custom debug logger that works just like System.out, but is disabled by default. That way, conversion was just a matter of replacing System.out with TestLogger.out which can be done via search/replace. Not sure if I ever checked that in, but it would be trivial to replicate. Thanks, - Paul On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 5:32:49 PM PDT, Timothy Farkaswrote: Hi All, I was wondering if there was a magical way to enable the Slf4j loggers for unit tests without adding a logback-test.xml file into src/test/resources for a submodule in the project? If not, would there by any issues with adding a default logback-test.xml file that has logging disabled by default to each submodule's src/test/resources directory? I'd like to do this in order to discourage the use of System.out.println in tests (and eventually prohibit it completely) by providing an easy to use out of the box alternative. Currently our test logs are polluted by many System.out.print statements and switching to using logging will allow us to have our test messages when we want them, and to disable them when we don't want them. Thanks, Tim
[Question] Using loggers in tests
Hi All, I was wondering if there was a magical way to enable the Slf4j loggers for unit tests without adding a logback-test.xml file into src/test/resources for a submodule in the project? If not, would there by any issues with adding a default logback-test.xml file that has logging disabled by default to each submodule's src/test/resources directory? I'd like to do this in order to discourage the use of System.out.println in tests (and eventually prohibit it completely) by providing an easy to use out of the box alternative. Currently our test logs are polluted by many System.out.print statements and switching to using logging will allow us to have our test messages when we want them, and to disable them when we don't want them. Thanks, Tim
Re: Delete spurious branches from Apache
I believe Drill web site and documentation is generated automatically from the gh_pages. Moving this is probably not advisable. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Boaz Ben-Zviwrote: > Done – all three were deleted, using github (thanks @Vlad Rozov). > > There is also an active branch called “gh-pages” (and a non-active one > called “gh-pages-master”) that seems to be used for the Drill documentation. > Maybe this work should be moved to its own Repo ? It does not make sense > to be a part of the Drill sources (e.g., note this branch is “3086 commits > behind”). > @Bridget Bevens – what do you think ? > > Thanks, > >Boaz > > On 5/22/18, 1:02 PM, "Parth Chandra" wrote: > > Yes, please go ahead and remove these branches. > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Vlad Rozov wrote: > > > There is an option to delete the branch on github directly (no need > to > > use "git push"). > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > > > > > On 5/21/18 18:35, Boaz Ben-Zvi wrote: > > > >> I mistakenly pushed a branch (“MERGE-180521-01”) into the Apache > >> repo, and plan to delete it soon > >> (i.e. do “git push https://urldefense.proofpoint. > com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill.git=DwIFaQ& > c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg=EqulKDxxEDCX6zbp1AZAa1-iAPQGgCioAqgDp7DE2BU= > Jgwab6ezufiqEbsi7h1wNNGZPnUbR28Caq2JWPsSlp0= > JiRFn2vcSJHxPA09nlPxBKSi9xk0thr-JKiaYNyMEws= --delete > >> MERGE-180521-01” ). > >> > >>Just in case someone notices > >> > >>On this occasion: Looks like there are other similar such > branches: > >> “DRILL-3478” and “DRILL-4235” ; any objection to deleting those as > well ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Boaz > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
[jira] [Created] (DRILL-6445) Fix existing test cases in TestScripts.java and add new test case for DRILLBIT_CONTEXT variable
Sorabh Hamirwasia created DRILL-6445: Summary: Fix existing test cases in TestScripts.java and add new test case for DRILLBIT_CONTEXT variable Key: DRILL-6445 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-6445 Project: Apache Drill Issue Type: Task Reporter: Sorabh Hamirwasia Assignee: Sorabh Hamirwasia Fix For: 1.14.0 Under drill-yarn module there is [TestScripts.java file|https://github.com/apache/drill/blob/master/drill-yarn/src/test/java/org/apache/drill/yarn/scripts/TestScripts.java] created for testing the scripts provided by Drill to setup the environment. Currently those tests are failing. This Jira is to make sure all the tests are passing and few new tests are added for DRILLBIT_CONTEXT variable inside the script. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (DRILL-6444) Hash Join: Avoid partitioning when memory is sufficient
Boaz Ben-Zvi created DRILL-6444: --- Summary: Hash Join: Avoid partitioning when memory is sufficient Key: DRILL-6444 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-6444 Project: Apache Drill Issue Type: Improvement Components: Execution - Relational Operators Reporter: Boaz Ben-Zvi Assignee: Boaz Ben-Zvi The Hash Join Spilling feature introduced partitioning (of the incoming build side) which adds some overhead (copying the incoming data, row by row). That happens even when no spilling is needed. Suggested optimization: Try reading the incoming build data without partitioning, while checking that enough memory is available. In case the whole build side (plus hash table) fits in memory - then continue like a "single partition". In case not, then need to partition the data read so far and continue as usual (with partitions). (See optimization 8.1 in the Hash Join Spill design document: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c_oGQY4E5d58qJYv_zc7ka834hSaB3wDQwqKcMoSAI/edit] ) This is currently implemented only for the case of num_partitions = 1 (i.e, no spilling, and no memory checking). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)