-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.1k
HDDS-1779. TestWatchForCommit tests are flaky. #1071
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1
I have not reviewed the new file. As it is just code movement per our discussion.
Approving, pl consider the change I have suggested and remove the debug println.
...ne/integration-test/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/ozone/client/rpc/TestWatchForCommit.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
// as well as there is no logIndex generate in Ratis. | ||
// The basic idea here is just to test if its throws an exception. | ||
xceiverClient | ||
.watchForCommit(index + new Random().nextInt(100) + 10, 20000); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
instead of a Random increment, why not increment by a fixed number everytime - say 100 or 110? This applies to all the other modified test cases as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The idea here is to run the test each time with unique number so any possible hacks/errors get caught if any.
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1
…well as ceckstyle issues.
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, looks good to me.
Thanks @mukul1987 and @supratimdeka for the review. I have committed the change to trunk. |
* Using jsonserde to write metadata file * Getting rid of public static class
No description provided.