[GitHub] ignite pull request #4547: Tdr 26

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4547 Tdr 26 To test on TC You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite tdr-26 Alternatively you can review

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4559: Ignite 9280

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4559 Ignite 9280 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-9280 Alternatively you can review

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

Yakov, Thanks for reply. Indeed, initial design assumed node termination when hanging critical thread has been detected. But sometimes it looks inappropriate. Let, for example fsync in WAL writer thread takes too long, and we terminate the node. Upon rebalancing, this may lead to long fsyncs on

Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

=74683878 -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

you think? > > --Yakov > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4335: IGNITE-8823 Quick fix.

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4335 IGNITE-8823 Quick fix. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-8823 Alternatively you can

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3401: IGNITE-6711: Squashed ignite-6711 branch.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3401 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3428: Ignite 7513

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3428 Ignite 7513 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-7513 Alternatively you can review

Re: Weird FillFactor metric fluctuation.

ld be calculated if metrics > itself is ok? > > Thoughts? > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7489 > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

in case of cluster hanging. > > > > > > > > The simplest solution here is alert in cases of blocking of some > > > > critical worker (we can improve WorkersRegistry for this purpose and > > > > expose list of blocked workers) and optionally call system co

Re: IEP-14: Ignite failures handling (Discussion)

ult choice. Could you please share your thoughts. > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP- > 14+Ignite+failures+handling > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3622: IGNITE-7770 For TC tests only

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3622 IGNITE-7770 For TC tests only You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-7770-0 Alternatively

Re: IEP-14: Ignite failures handling (Discussion)

13 мар. 2018 г. в 14:53, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3622: IGNITE-7770 For TC tests only

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3622 ---

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

mplementation of the IgniteCache#asSet method [1] > > and I think it should return Set (not IgniteSet). Because IgniteSet > > was introduced mainly to add methods for the collocated version of > > IgniteSet. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > [1] https:/

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

ated set should be > based on a cache, but I do not see why the existing API cannot be re-used. > > D. > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Ignite contibutors page

+1 -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3722: Ignite 7772

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3722 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3675: IGNITE-7983: NPE fix.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3675 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3843: Ignite 7770 2

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3843 Ignite 7770 2 Includes all reliable fixes found so far. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3870: IGNITE-8312: Simplified the choice of exception t...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3870 IGNITE-8312: Simplified the choice of exception thrown in pessimistic… … "prepare-after-rollback" scenario. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3861: IGNITE-8303: Avoided failure handler invocation w...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3861 IGNITE-8303: Avoided failure handler invocation when exchange-worker … …terminates before reconnect. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: Ticket review checklist

n branch. > > The > > >> > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of common problems such a > > >> broken > > >> > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help contributors lead their > pull > > >> > > requests to merge. > > >> > > > > >> > > Hallmarks of a good checklist: > > >> > > - It must be followed be everyone without exceptions > > >> > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple interpretations > > >> > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite development would > become > > a > > >> > > nightmare > > >> > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e. inacessibility of a single > > contributor > > >> > > should not block ticket progress forever. > > >> > > > > >> > > Please let me know if you think the idea makes sense. If we agree > on > > >> it, > > >> > > let's start defining action items for the checklist. My 2 cents: > > >> > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new failures > > >> > > 2) If ticket targets specific component, it should be reviewed by > > >> > > component's maintainer* > > >> > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing behavior, at least two > > >> > > commiters should approve the changes ** > > >> > > > > >> > > Thoughts? > > >> > > > > >> > > Vladimir. > > >> > > > > >> > > * TBD: Review component list and define maintainers; define what > to > > >> do if > > >> > > maintainer is unavailable > > >> > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API" > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Ticket review checklist

t; Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков < > sharple...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics. > > > > > partially +1 > > > > > > > > > > It makes sense to

Re: MTCGA: .NET Core Linux tests: process crash (likely due to IGNITE-7770)

nks, > Pavel > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/c000fbc5ba0014a24f3b3a81d1607d > 66159abdc7 > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Memory usage per cache

Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>: > Denis, > > I'll need to conduct some experiments to estimate the difference. And the > answer will depend on numerous parameters: object sizes, number of caches, > that share the same data region and so on. > > пт, 23 марта 2

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3722: Ignite 7772

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3722 Ignite 7772 For TeamCity testing You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-7772 Alternatively

Re: Code inspection

the following > > > > > > scenarios: > > > > > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is > > > fast) > > > > — > > > > > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master; > > > > > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ > > > > checks > > > > > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and > > > > overall > > > > > > code > > > > > > >>>>> quality improvement goals. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. > Can > > > you > > > > > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details? > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test > > run / > > > > too > > > > > > >>>>> much > > > > > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > >>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > > >>: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy, > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection > > profile > > > > > should > > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' > > > > disabled > > > > > > >>>>> because > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network > > > > > (although > > > > > > >>>>> even > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes). > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the > > > > profiles > > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>> then > > > > > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is > satisfied > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>> result. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov < > > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and > test > > > > > > coverage > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> inspections. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com dmitriy.govorukhin@ > > > > > > gmail.com>> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code > > analysis > > > > in > > > > > > >>>>> general. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection > > > rule. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the > > > > TeamCity > > > > > > >>>>> build. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > >>>>> nizhi...@apache.org <mailto:nizhi...@apache.org>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already! > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion - > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble < > > > > > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +, Dmitry Pavlov пишет: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of > > > code > > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to > > TeamCity. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com > dmitriy.govorukhin@ > > > > > > gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it > is > > > > > because > > > > > > >>>>>>>> everyone > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/ > > > help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > < > > > > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2749: IGNITE-6186: Removed redundant parameter.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2749 ---

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

, but this will require API extension. 2018-03-16 8:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > > > It's technically possible to produce both kinds

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3652: IGNITE-7770 A bunch of changes to fix tx timeout ...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3652 IGNITE-7770 A bunch of changes to fix tx timeout handling. For TeamCity tests only You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com

Re: Exploiting GP GPUs in Ignite ML

Yes, as one of possible options. ср, 21 марта 2018, 20:53 Igor Rudyak <irud...@gmail.com>: > You mean utilizing JCuda for CPU bound ML tasks? > > Igor > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, Ignite

Re: Memory usage per cache

e architecture side. > > Alex G., please step in and give more details suggesting your approach. > > Others, please join the discussion as well. > > -- > Denis > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

Thanks, Dmitry. I agree ultimately, DS API uniformity is a weighty reason. 2018-03-17 3:54 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitry, your way allows to reuse ex

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3675: IGNITE-7983: NPE fix.

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3675 IGNITE-7983: NPE fix. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-7983 Alternatively you can

Exploiting GP GPUs in Ignite ML

Hi, Igniters! Machine Learning algorithms consume much computational resources. So I'm curious whether it's possible to exploit General Purpose GPUs in Ignite? Did somebody think about this? -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3687: IGNITE-8025 runMultiThreadedAsync cancellation fi...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3687 IGNITE-8025 runMultiThreadedAsync cancellation fix. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite

Re: Memory usage per cache

Denis, I'll need to conduct some experiments to estimate the difference. And the answer will depend on numerous parameters: object sizes, number of caches, that share the same data region and so on. пт, 23 марта 2018, 21:53 Denis Magda : > Andrey, > > How good will be the

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3531: IGNITE-7685: Fixed allocation rate.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3531 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #3525: Ignite 7517

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3525 ---

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

solution. We can support > both. > > As far as current igniteSet implementation - all issues described above > will go away if you use approach suggested by Dmitry. I do not see a need > for any major changes. > > Vladimir. > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4248: IGNITE-8860 Returned IgniteDiscoveryThread to Rin...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4248 IGNITE-8860 Returned IgniteDiscoveryThread to RingMessageWorker. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4876: Ignite 9744

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4876 Ignite 9744 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-9744 Alternatively you can review

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4015: Ignite 6587

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4015 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4962: IGNITE-9710 Ignite watchdog service handles longr...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4962 IGNITE-9710 Ignite watchdog service handles longrunning cache creation You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4736: Ignite 6587 debug

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4736 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4089: Ignite 6587 true

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4089 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4559: Ignite 9280

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4559 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4962: IGNITE-9710 Ignite watchdog service handles longr...

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4962 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4914: IGNITE-9737

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4914 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5026: IGNITE-9932 Ignoring exchanger critical section b...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5026 IGNITE-9932 Ignoring exchanger critical section begin/end if called from illegal thread. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https

Re: Switching to real FailureHandler in tests

r 2 fails) appeared because of new handler. > > I think we should keep no-op handler as default, but add new handler > for a few classes, where critical situations aren't expected. > > пт, 21 сент. 2018 г. в 17:03, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > Thanks to all for parti

Re: Applicability of term 'cache' to Apache Ignite

n code base, but I support all > changes > that helps the goal described above in this letter. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7. Last Mile

t; > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi NIkolay, > > > > > > > >

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

i...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found that this feature can't be disabled from config. > > > > > > > The only way to di

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5092: TDR-93 Several WAL compressor fixes.

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5092 TDR-93 Several WAL compressor fixes. For test purposes. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite tdr-93

Re: Abbreviation code-style requirement.

to leave only "common sense" abbreviations and those that > are > > > Ignite domain specific. > > > > > > I would also suggest that we treat names mentioned in the table on the > > page > > > as names that are required to be abbreviated. Please take this into > > account > > > when conducting code reviews. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5219: IGNITE-10079 Fixed inconsistent lastCompactedSegm...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5219 IGNITE-10079 Fixed inconsistent lastCompactedSegment in FileWALMgr. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5084: IGNITE-10003 Changed checkpointReadLock timeout f...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5084 IGNITE-10003 Changed checkpointReadLock timeout failure type. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite

Re: Unreliable checks in tests for string presence in GridStringLogger contents

able when we write explicit assert in tests: > assertTrue("Fail reason.", lsnr.check()); > ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 14:36, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > Thanks, Vyacheslav. > > > > Created the issue [1] based on your idea. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org

Re: Abbreviation code-style requirement.

; > > > Let's keep using abbreviations and treat them as mandatory requirement. > > This is important for keeping our codebase consistent and tidy. > > > > --Yakov > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: IGNITE-2.7. New Features

Let's collect new features and improvements of Ignite 2.7 and includes it > to release notes and other documents. > > Can you answer and describe your contributions? > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

gt; > Thanks, for a clarification. > > > В Ср, 03/10/2018 в 13:58 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > Nikolay, both commits fixed a regression compared to ignite-2.6. First > one was mentioned by Anton Kalashnikov before (java-level deadlock during > WAL flush), another - by Andrey Ku

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

this immediately or is it possible to postpone till 2.8? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 вт, 9 окт. 2018 г. в 11:17, Andrey Kuznetsov : > Ignite committers, > > I have prepared a PR for 2.7 blocker [1]. Could anybody merge it to 2.7 > and master? > > [1] https://issu

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

branch only previously announces features. > > >> > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE > > TO > > >> > > OCTOBER > > >> > > > > 10*. > > >> > > > > So the *October

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

> > > Andrey, Anton, > > > > > > How do you conclude that these tickets are blockers? What is the > impact to > > > users and in what circumstances users can met them? > > > > > > Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we do no

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

> > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4914: Ignite 9737

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4914 Ignite 9737 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-9737 Alternatively you can review

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4667: IGNITE-8823 Quick fix.

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4667 IGNITE-8823 Quick fix. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-8823-true Alternatively you

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4335: IGNITE-8823 Quick fix.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4335 ---

Re: Switching to real FailureHandler in tests

o fail the test > by > > default, not only stopping a node. > > > > Some time ago I've created > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 to > > find out a way to do so. > > > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 19:40, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > &

Re: Switching to real FailureHandler in tests

be always a minority of tests, so fail handler > call is something abnormal. > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 21:15, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > Why do you think there is no consensus? > > > > I have no clue that by default failure handler should fail all test. > > > > ч

Re: Switching to real FailureHandler in tests

; чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 21:22, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > I meant the first comment in [1]. We are to decide first whether we'll do > > it or not. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > < > > > https://i

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

t step is feature that will allow signal about > > blocked threads to the monitoring tools via MXBean. > > > > I hope you will continue development of this feature and provide your > > vision in new JIRA issue. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:54 PM Andrey Ku

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4835: IGNITE-9695 WAL disabling prohibition in WalState...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4835 IGNITE-9695 WAL disabling prohibition in WalStateManager. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite

Switching to real FailureHandler in tests

hide these bugs from ourselves. What do you think about changing default handler to {{StopNodeFailureHandler}} at {{GridAbstractTest}} level? This could be overridden in subclasses. -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

> > section. This means it easy to halt the node in case of longrunning > > > > actions during PME, for example when we create a cache with > > > > StoreFactrory which connect to 3rd party DB. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that it is the r

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

t 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> dpavlov@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 > >> Oct) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, > >> isn't > >> >> > it? I > >> >> > > > find it very important. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> nizhi...@apache.org > >> >> >: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < > >> >> akuznet...@apache.org > >> >> > >: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Vova, > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4547: Tdr 26

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4547 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5541: IGNITE-10386 Add mode when WAL won't be disabled ...

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5541 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5092: TDR-93 Several WAL compressor fixes.

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5092 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5219: IGNITE-10079 Fixed inconsistent lastCompactedSegm...

Github user andrey-kuznetsov closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5219 ---

Write access to Apache Ignite Confluence

Hi, Igniters. I'd like to add new wiki page with suggestions for future Ignite 3.0 release. We can collect any ideas there and then discuss and refine them on dev-list. Could someone grant me (andrey-kuznetsov) write permission?

Re: Write access to Apache Ignite Confluence

Thanks, Dmitriy. The page stub [1] is now created. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0+Wishlist Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov. вт, 18 дек. 2018, 12:45 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > Hi Andrey, > > I've updated permissions, ple

Re: [MTCGA]: new failures in builds [2636079] needs to be handled

Separate issue has been created to address this: IGNITE-10813. Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov. пн, 24 дек. 2018, 19:37 dpavlov.ta...@gmail.com: > Hi Igniters, > > I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than > welcomed to help. > > If you

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

; saying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop > > > where > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be > > > > triggered, > > > > > you > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > override > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be > checked > > in > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted > > > > behavior, > > > > > > > that you > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton > > > > > Vinogradov" < > > > > > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure > > > > inside > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected then > > test > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > rethrow > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton > Vinogradov > > < > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure then a > > correct > > > > > case > > > > > > > is to > > > > > > > > > > wrap > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure > > > > handler > > > > > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii > Ryabov > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases > > when > > > > we > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > > > > critical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or exception > > thrown. > > > > Such > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > trigger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when > everything > > > goes > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy > > Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests > it > > > > > does't > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > old > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton > > > > Vinogradov < > > > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason > of > > > > > explicit > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii > > > > Ryabov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default > > > no-op > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and > > > fails > > > > > the > > > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure > > > > handler > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > overrided > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or > > something > > > > > > > unexpected > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > write > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Default failure handler was changed for tests

t; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii > > Ryabov > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, I think wrapping every > disconnecting > > > > node > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > try-catch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less readable than no-op handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry > > changed > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a meaningful handler. So we should > > start > > > > > every > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review remaining tests and > remove > > > noop > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey > > Mashenkov > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should > be > > > > > > > triggered, > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one and rise some flag, which can be > > > > checked > > > > > in > > > > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous > unwanted > > > > > > > behavior, > > > > > > > > > > that you > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь > > "Anton > > > > > > > > Vinogradov" < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of > > > failure > > > > > > > inside > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case found not equals to expected > > then > > > > > test > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > rethrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton > > > > Vinogradov > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect the failure > then a > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > is to > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op > > > failure > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii > > > > Ryabov > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail > > > cases > > > > > when > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> failure like node stop or > exception > > > > > thrown. > > > > > > > Such > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> handler and it fails test when > > > > everything > > > > > > goes > > > > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, > Dmitriy > > > > > Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your > > > tests > > > > it > > > > > > > > does't > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to > > remove > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, > Anton > > > > > > > Vinogradov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the > > > reason > > > > of > > > > > > > > explicit > > > > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, > > > Dmitrii > > > > > > > Ryabov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's > > > default > > > > > > no-op > > > > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> changed to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the > node > > > and > > > > > > fails > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op > > > failure > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > overrided > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` > method. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > unexpected > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

[GitHub] ignite pull request #5541: IGNITE-10386 Add mode when WAL won't be disabled ...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5541 IGNITE-10386 Add mode when WAL won't be disabled during rebalancing caused by BLT change Just for tests now You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4736: Ignite 6587 debug

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4736 Ignite 6587 debug For debug purposes. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-6587-debug

[GitHub] ignite pull request #4762: IGNITE-9601 Writing rollover record to the end of...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4762 IGNITE-9601 Writing rollover record to the end of current segment. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov

CRUD issues in Ignite Upsource

://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Ignite 2.7.5 Release scope

>> > чт, 21 мар. 2019 г. в 16:55, Petr Ivanov : > > >> > > > >> > > Huge +1 > > >> > > > > >> > > Will try to add new JDK in nearest time to our Teamcity. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On 21 Mar 2019, at 16:27, Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Igniters, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Meanwhile, Java 12 GA is available. I suggest at least test our > > new > > >> tests > > >> > > > scripts with a couple of Java builds. WDYT? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sincerely, > > >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ср, 20 мар. 2019 г. в 19:21, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Hi Ignite Developers, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In a separate discussion, I've shared a log with all commits. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> As far as I can see, nobody removed commits from this sheet, so > > the > > >> > > scope > > >> > > >> of release will be discussed in another way: only explicitly > > >> declared > > >> > > >> commits will be cherry-picked. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sincerely, > > >> > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: GridDhtInvalidPartitionException takes the cluster down

: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > Restarting a node when injecting data and having it expired, results > at > > > > GridDhtInvalidPartitionException which terminates nodes with > > > > SYSTEM_WORKER_TERMINATION one by one taking the whole cluster down. > This > > > is > > > > really bad and I didn't find the way to save the cluster from > > > disappearing. > > > > I created a JIRA issue > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11620 > > > > with a test case. Any clues how to fix this inconsistency when > > > rebalancing? > > > > > > > > -- Roman > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: GridDhtInvalidPartitionException takes the cluster down

, mere spamming to log will not have an effect. Anyway, when experienced committers suggest to disable failure handling and hide existing issues, I feel as if they are pulling my leg. Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov. вт, 26 марта 2019, 13:30 Nikolay Izhikov nizhi...@apache.org: > And

Re: GridDhtInvalidPartitionException takes the cluster down

rom SO discussion I see following error message: ": >>> Possible > starvation in striped pool." > Are you sure this message are clear for Ignite user(not Ignite hacker)? > What user should do to prevent this error in future? > > В Вт, 26/03/2019 в 10:10 +0300, Andrey K

Re: GridDhtInvalidPartitionException takes the cluster down

I see no other dependencies for IGNITE-10003. Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov. ср, 27 марта 2019, 18:25 Andrey Gura ag...@apache.org: > What do you think about including patches [1] and [2] to Ignite 2.7.5? > It's all about default failure handler behavior in cases of > SYSTEM_WORKE

Re: how to get zipkin tracing of REST calls from one microservice to all microservices calls from any task defined in apache ignite

; > > > Thanks, > > Aditya > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, > proprietary and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it > immediately. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Unreliable checks in tests for string presence in GridStringLogger contents

Hi, Sergey! Your note sounds convincing. +1 for adding throwing version of {{check}}. Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov. вт, 29 янв. 2019, 19:14 Sergey macrerg...@gmail.com: > Hi! > I appreciate your efforts in replcacing GridStringLogger, just a remark. > I think it was a mistake to cha

Re: New Сommitter: Maxim Muzafarov

Great news! Congratulations! ср, 28 авг. 2019 г., 18:28 Alex Plehanov : > Maxim, congratulations! > > ср, 28 авг. 2019 г. в 18:13, Nikita Amelchev : > > > My congratulations, Maxim! > > > > ср, 28 авг. 2019 г. в 18:11, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > Dear community, > > > > > > The Project

Re: Coding guidelines. Useless JavaDoc comments.

+1 for making javadoc comments optional. - Empty and tautological comments are kind of garbage that reduce readability. - It's better to leave the entity undocumented, than write unexpressive/misleading comment. - Even classes may not require javadocs, e.g. simple DTOs. ср, 7 авг. 2019 г., 13:39

<    1   2   3   >