Default failure handler was changed for tests

[Dmitry Pavlov]

I hope you've misprinted here
> I'm here to blame the author.

We can blame code but never coders.

Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:

> Ivan.
>
> > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> ticket for further investigation).
>
> I support this idea.
> Do we create the tickets already?
>
> > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
>
> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>
> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> and others).
> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>
> I'm here to blame the author.
> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>
> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > there.
> > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> >
> > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > another slightly different trick [2].
> >
> > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > ticket for further investigation).
> > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> >
> > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Dmitriy.
> > >
> > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >
> > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> was
> > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > >
> > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > >
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > >
> > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> still, it
> > > > > is
> > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > exception
> > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and I'll
> > > > > explain
> > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> nonsense. If
> > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> community,
> > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By this
> > > > > commit,
> > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> and we’re
> > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> copy-pasted,
> > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > >
> > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> have with
> > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > >
> > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> there
> > > > > are
> > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> unconditionally
> > > > > muted failures?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> absolutely
> > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> well, to
> > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> deserved to
> > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> especially
> > > > > if
> > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread will
> join
> > > > > the
> > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > and
> > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> contribute,- more
> > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> much
> > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> to do
> > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op or
> not
> > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> feedback, people
> > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing this.
> Result:
> > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an absolutely
> perfect
> > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> not, and
> > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> about Apache
> > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a cases
> with
> > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> implementation:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or grep
> > > > >
> > > > > search.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> approach
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> fix
> > > > >
> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> come to the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > others
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> suggest
> > > > > >
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> make a
> > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy should
> (and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> before
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> re-checks of
> > > > >
> > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler after
> > > > >
> > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton, Andrew,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests to
> double
> > > > > >
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> together. And
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces someone
> else
> > > > >
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> code but
> > > > >
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> critical
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> imperfect logic
> > > > >
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> flaws,
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> styling?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> cleanup
> > > > >
> > > > > mess
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> made and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> clean.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments will
> not be
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in the
> > > > >
> > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> failure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> using any
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report attached.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid of
> all
> > > > >
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> research a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> you,
> > > > >
> > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and check
> these
> > > > >
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is easy
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism for
> failing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> No-Op for
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> proper
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> activate
> > > > >
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> explanation
> > > > >
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> issue
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> merged
> > > > >
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard Shangareev
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> No-Op for
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> respell
> > > > >
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op failure
> handler
> > > > > >
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > >
> > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert other's
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> can do
> > > > > >
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> contributed? I
> > > > >
> > > > > hope
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> further
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> improvements
> > > > >
> > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto, please
> > > > >
> > > > > justify
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> please feel
> > > > >
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > >
> > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> thing --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> really
> > > > > >
> > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> result? And
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> provide
> > > > >
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask you
> to
> > > > >
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> unknown
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> problem
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> something,
> > > > >
> > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> your idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution if
> > > > >
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not Dmitrii
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> later
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only option
> - ok
> > > > >
> > > > > for
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > >
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> allow
> > > > >
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> ready to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and what
> was the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide issues
> > > > >
> > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> provide
> > > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> solved by
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> in case
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> Dmitriy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> because
> > > > >
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> default long
> > > > > >
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> previous
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> demonstrate your
> > > > > >
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> not work
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside a
> node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05, Anton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do a
> throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> *test even
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure you
> have to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> rollback these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> handler as a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> fallback
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> become
> > > > >
> > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a ticket
> (may be
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> PR and
> > > > >
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover test
> doesn't
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need to
> > > > >
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set custom
> failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> is needed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:16
> PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> problem",
> > > > >
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share some
> > > > >
> > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 11:37 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> please
> > > > >
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> 2018 г. в
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.

Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".

Sorry, one more time.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:

> I hope you've misprinted here
> > I'm here to blame the author.
>
> We can blame code but never coders.
>
> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Ivan.
> >
> > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> > ticket for further investigation).
> >
> > I support this idea.
> > Do we create the tickets already?
> >
> > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> >
> > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> >
> > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> > and others).
> > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> >
> > I'm here to blame the author.
> > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> >
> > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > there.
> > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > >
> > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > >
> > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > >
> > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy.
> > > >
> > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >
> > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> no-op
> > was
> > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> > still, it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > > exception
> > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and
> I'll
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > nonsense. If
> > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> > community,
> > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By
> this
> > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> > and we’re
> > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> > have with
> > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > unconditionally
> > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > absolutely
> > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> > well, to
> > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > deserved to
> > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > especially
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> will
> > join
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > contribute,- more
> > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> > much
> > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> > to do
> > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op
> or
> > not
> > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > feedback, people
> > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> this.
> > Result:
> > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> absolutely
> > perfect
> > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> > not, and
> > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > about Apache
> > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> cases
> > with
> > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > implementation:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or
> grep
> > > > > >
> > > > > > search.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> > approach
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> > fix
> > > > > >
> > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> > come to the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> > suggest
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> > make a
> > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> should
> > (and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> > before
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > re-checks of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> after
> > > > > >
> > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> Andrew,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests
> to
> > double
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > together. And
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> someone
> > else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> > code but
> > > > > >
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > critical
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > imperfect logic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> > e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> > flaws,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> > styling?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> > cleanup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> > made and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> > clean.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> will
> > not be
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in
> the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> > failure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> > using any
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid
> of
> > all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> > research a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> > you,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> check
> > these
> > > > > >
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> easy
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism
> for
> > failing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > proper
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > activate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > explanation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> > issue
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> > merged
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> Shangareev
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > No-Op for
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> > respell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> failure
> > handler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov
> <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> other's
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> > can do
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > contributed? I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> > further
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > improvements
> > > > > >
> > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> please
> > > > > >
> > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > please feel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> > thing --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > really
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> > result? And
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> > provide
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask
> you
> > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide
> the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> > unknown
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> > problem
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > something,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> > your idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution
> if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> Dmitrii
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> > later
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> option
> > - ok
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> > allow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > ready to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> what
> > was the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> issues
> > > > > >
> > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> > provide
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> > solved by
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> > in case
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > because
> > > > > >
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > default long
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> > previous
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > demonstrate your
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> > not work
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside
> a
> > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> Anton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do
> a
> > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> > *test even
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure
> you
> > have to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > rollback these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > handler as a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> > fallback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> > become
> > > > > >
> > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> ticket
> > (may be
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> > PR and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> test
> > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need
> to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> custom
> > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> > is needed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:16
> > PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > problem",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share
> some
> > > > > >
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> > please
> > > > > >
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > >

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Nikolay,

I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
patch then let's do it.
чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:

>
> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>
> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>
> Sorry, one more time.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
>
> > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > I'm here to blame the author.
> >
> > We can blame code but never coders.
> >
> > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing in
> > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Ivan.
> > >
> > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a>
> > > ticket for further investigation).
> > >
> > > I support this idea.
> > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > >
> > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > >
> > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the product(Ignite
> > > and others).
> > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > >
> > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places with
> > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > >
> > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > there.
> > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > >
> > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to the
> > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap refactoring.
> > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can suggest
> > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > >
> > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly. So,
> > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for sure:
> > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create a
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > >
> > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then do it
> > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe that
> > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >
> > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > no-op
> > > was
> > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better. But
> > > still, it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with better
> > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, - and
> > I'll
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in the
> > > community,
> > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure. By
> > this
> > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900 tests,
> > > and we’re
> > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed to
> > > have with
> > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements here? Why
> > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes problem, as
> > > well, to
> > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > deserved to
> > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > especially
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > will
> > > join
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't care too
> > > much
> > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we need
> > > to do
> > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be no-op
> > or
> > > not
> > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without proper
> > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > this.
> > > Result:
> > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > absolutely
> > > perfect
> > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I believe
> > > not, and
> > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > cases
> > > with
> > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > implementation:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE or
> > grep
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate my
> > > approach
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related much to
> > > fix
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will just
> > > come to the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution and say
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he or she
> > > suggest
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who do can
> > > make a
> > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > should
> > > (and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had it
> > > before
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > re-checks of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > after
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > Andrew,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18 tests
> > to
> > > double
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > together. And
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > someone
> > > else
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve project
> > > code but
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect
> > > critical
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust way,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the existing
> > > flaws,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with better
> > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets to
> > > cleanup
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time to
> > > made and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code base
> > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > will
> > > not be
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits in
> > the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before massive
> > > failure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility of
> > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get rid
> > of
> > > all
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try to
> > > research a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things for
> > > you,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > check
> > > these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > easy
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed mechanism
> > for
> > > failing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change, I ask
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > activate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > explanation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix, reopen the
> > > issue
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the fix was
> > > merged
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > Shangareev
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in saving
> > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин Иван
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would like to
> > > respell
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > failure
> > > handler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy Pavlov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > other's
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of people
> > > can do
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > contributed? I
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just commit
> > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > improvements
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > please
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > please feel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what does
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very good
> > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > really
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight positive
> > > result? And
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask me to
> > > provide
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author or
> > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member, ask
> > you
> > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to provide
> > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge fix of
> > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation of the
> > > problem
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > something,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to demo
> > > your idea.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a contribution
> > if
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure fixes
> > > later
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > option
> > > - ok
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35, Anton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these changes
> > > allow
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > ready to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > what
> > > was the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a reviewer, to
> > > provide
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what test we
> > > solved by
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes
> > > in case
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > because
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > default long
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it will
> > > not work
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool inside
> > a
> > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block will do
> > a
> > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the *bad
> > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect failure
> > you
> > > have to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39
> > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason to
> > > fallback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these test
> > > become
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > ticket
> > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched files in
> > > PR and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more affected
> > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > test
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no need
> > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > custom
> > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging simulation
> > > is needed
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 12:16
> > > PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > problem",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share
> > some
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> > > please
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек.
> > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > >

--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Ivan,

Got it.
Thanks for the explanation.

> mostly I would like an opinion from Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author

Dmitriy, can you answer?
I can do this improvement by myself, by if you want to do it - go ahead.


чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 12:11, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:

> Nikolay,
>
> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> patch then let's do it.
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >
> > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >
> > Sorry, one more time.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> >
> > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > >
> > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > >
> > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing
> in
> > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Ivan.
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a>
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > >
> > > > I support this idea.
> > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >
> > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> product(Ignite
> > > > and others).
> > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> with
> > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > there.
> > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> suggest
> > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly.
> So,
> > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> sure:
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> do it
> > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> that
> > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> But
> > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> better
> > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> and
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > > code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> By
> > > this
> > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> tests,
> > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed
> to
> > > > have with
> > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> here? Why
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> problem, as
> > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > > will
> > > > join
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> care too
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we
> need
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> no-op
> > > or
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> proper
> > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > > this.
> > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > absolutely
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> believe
> > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > > cases
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> or
> > > grep
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate
> my
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> much to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> just
> > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> and say
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> or she
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> do can
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > should
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> it
> > > > before
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > > after
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> tests
> > > to
> > > > double
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > someone
> > > > else
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> project
> > > > code but
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust
> way,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> existing
> > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> better
> > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> to
> > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> to
> > > > made and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code
> base
> > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > > will
> > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> massive
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility
> of
> > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> to
> > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things
> for
> > > > you,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > > check
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> mechanism
> > > for
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> I ask
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > > activate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> reopen the
> > > > issue
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> fix was
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > Shangareev
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> Иван
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> like to
> > > > respell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests
> are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > other's
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> people
> > > > can do
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> commit
> > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > improvements
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > > please feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> does
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> good
> > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> positive
> > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> me to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author
> or
> > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> ask
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> provide
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> fix of
> > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> of the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > something,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> demo
> > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> contribution
> > > if
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> fixes
> > > > later
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > option
> > > > - ok
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> changes
> > > > allow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > > what
> > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > issues
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> reviewer, to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> test we
> > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> changes
> > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > > because
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > > default long
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> the
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> will
> > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> inside
> > > a
> > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> will do
> > > a
> > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> *bad
> > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> failure
> > > you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:39
> > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason
> to
> > > > fallback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> test
> > > > become
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > ticket
> > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> files in
> > > > PR and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> affected
> > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > > test
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > custom
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> simulation
> > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > > problem",
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> share
> > > some
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nikolay,
>
> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> patch then let's do it.
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >
> > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >
> > Sorry, one more time.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> >
> > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > >
> > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > >
> > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely nothing
> in
> > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a practical
> > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Ivan.
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a>
> > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > >
> > > > I support this idea.
> > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >
> > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> product(Ignite
> > > > and others).
> > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> with
> > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > there.
> > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> the
> > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> refactoring.
> > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> suggest
> > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be costly.
> So,
> > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> sure:
> > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and create
> a
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> do it
> > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee it.
> > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> that
> > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> But
> > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> better
> > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> and
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop this
> > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only) perfect
> > > code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> By
> > > this
> > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> tests,
> > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are allowed
> to
> > > > have with
> > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> here? Why
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii R.?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> problem, as
> > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is he
> > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess, no,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this thread
> > > will
> > > > join
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> care too
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts we
> need
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> no-op
> > > or
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> proper
> > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of sharing
> > > this.
> > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > absolutely
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> believe
> > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of thinking
> > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for a
> > > cases
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> or
> > > grep
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to demonstrate
> my
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> much to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> just
> > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> and say
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> or she
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> do can
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > should
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> it
> > > > before
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node handler
> > > after
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> tests
> > > to
> > > > double
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we go
> > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > someone
> > > > else
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> project
> > > > code but
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> expect
> > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more robust
> way,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> existing
> > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> better
> > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> to
> > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> to
> > > > made and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping code
> base
> > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case arguments
> > > will
> > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted commits
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> massive
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate possibility
> of
> > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> to
> > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do things
> for
> > > > you,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket and
> > > check
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It is
> > > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> mechanism
> > > for
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> I ask
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which intentionally
> > > > activate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> reopen the
> > > > issue
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> fix was
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > Shangareev
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> saving
> > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> Иван
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> like to
> > > > respell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > failure
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> Pavlov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these tests
> are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > other's
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> people
> > > > can do
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> commit
> > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > improvements
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by veto,
> > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all community,
> > > > please feel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53, Павлухин
> > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> does
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> good
> > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it is
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> positive
> > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> me to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an author
> or
> > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> ask
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> provide
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> fix of
> > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> of the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > something,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> demo
> > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> contribution
> > > if
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> fixes
> > > > later
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > option
> > > > - ok
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> Anton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> changes
> > > > allow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way and
> > > what
> > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > issues
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> reviewer, to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> test we
> > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> changes
> > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any rollback
> > > > because
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op became
> > > > default long
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> the
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> will
> > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> inside
> > > a
> > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:05,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> will do
> > > a
> > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> *bad
> > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> failure
> > > you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 12:39
> > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful failure
> > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the reason
> to
> > > > fallback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> test
> > > > become
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > ticket
> > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> files in
> > > > PR and
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> affected
> > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of failover
> > > test
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > custom
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> simulation
> > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide any
> > > > problem",
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> share
> > > some
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOpFailureHandlers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4
> дек.
> > > > 2018 г. в
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 19:12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[Dmitrii Ryabov]

Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we
create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.

I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
appropriate changes and recheck issues.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:

> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > patch then let's do it.
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > >
> > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > >
> > > Sorry, one more time.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > >
> > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >
> > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > >
> > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> nothing
> > in
> > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> practical
> > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ivan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> create
> > a>
> > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >
> > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > the
> > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > refactoring.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > product(Ignite
> > > > > and others).
> > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> > with
> > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > the
> > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > refactoring.
> > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> > suggest
> > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> costly.
> > So,
> > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> > sure:
> > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> create
> > a
> > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> > do it
> > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee
> it.
> > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> > that
> > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details
> if
> > > > no-op
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > But
> > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> > better
> > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> > and
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop
> this
> > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> > the
> > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> perfect
> > > > code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > By
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> > tests,
> > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> allowed
> > to
> > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > here? Why
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii
> R.?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > problem, as
> > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is
> he
> > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess,
> no,
> > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> thread
> > > > will
> > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> > care too
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts
> we
> > need
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> > no-op
> > > > or
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> > proper
> > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> sharing
> > > > this.
> > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> > believe
> > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> thinking
> > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for
> a
> > > > cases
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> > or
> > > > grep
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> demonstrate
> > my
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> > much to
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> > just
> > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> > and say
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> > or she
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> > do can
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > > should
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> > it
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> handler
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> > tests
> > > > to
> > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we
> go
> > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > > someone
> > > > > else
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> > project
> > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > expect
> > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> robust
> > way,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> > existing
> > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> > better
> > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> > to
> > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> > to
> > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> code
> > base
> > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> arguments
> > > > will
> > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> commits
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > massive
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> possibility
> > of
> > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> > to
> > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> things
> > for
> > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket
> and
> > > > check
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It
> is
> > > > easy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > mechanism
> > > > for
> > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > saving
> > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with
> the
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> > I ask
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> intentionally
> > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > reopen the
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> > fix was
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > Shangareev
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > saving
> > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> > Иван
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> > like to
> > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > > failure
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> > Pavlov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> tests
> > are
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> > people
> > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> > commit
> > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> veto,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> community,
> > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> Павлухин
> > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> > does
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> > good
> > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it
> is
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > positive
> > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> > me to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> author
> > or
> > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> > ask
> > > > you
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > provide
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> > fix of
> > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> > of the
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> > demo
> > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > contribution
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> > fixes
> > > > > later
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > > option
> > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > changes
> > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to
> be
> > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way
> and
> > > > what
> > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > > issues
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > reviewer, to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> > test we
> > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> > changes
> > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> > PM
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> rollback
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> became
> > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> > the
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> > will
> > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> > inside
> > > > a
> > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 13:05,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> > will do
> > > > a
> > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> > *bad
> > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct
> fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > failure
> > > > you
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 12:39
> > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> failure
> > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> reason
> > to
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> > test
> > > > > become
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > > ticket
> > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> > files in
> > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > affected
> > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> failover
> > > > test
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > > custom
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > simulation
> > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 12:16
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide
> any
> > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > share
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have
> to
> > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > >

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Dmitrii Ryabov,

Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
looks good to me so far.

P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:

>
> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like we
> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>
> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
>
> > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Nikolay,
> > >
> > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > patch then let's do it.
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > >
> > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > nothing
> > > in
> > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > practical
> > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > create
> > > a>
> > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > > the
> > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all places
> > > with
> > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not got a
> > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require noop
> > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are covered
> > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach how to
> > > the
> > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I can
> > > suggest
> > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > costly.
> > > So,
> > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen for
> > > sure:
> > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and then
> > > do it
> > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can guarantee
> > it.
> > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I believe
> > > that
> > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor details
> > if
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be better.
> > > But
> > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something with
> > > better
> > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an implementation as
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache Way, -
> > > and
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we stop
> > this
> > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and anti-patterns in
> > > the
> > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > perfect
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test failure.
> > > By
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > tests,
> > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op was
> > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > allowed
> > > to
> > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > > here? Why
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with absolutely
> > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about reverting
> > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from Dmitrii
> > R.?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > problem, as
> > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot. Is
> > he
> > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I guess,
> > no,
> > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better fix.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> > thread
> > > > > will
> > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More you
> > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I don't
> > > care too
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide facts
> > we
> > > need
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should be
> > > no-op
> > > > > or
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just negative
> > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled without
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > sharing
> > > > > this.
> > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant contributors? I
> > > believe
> > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first principle'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > thinking
> > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class for
> > a
> > > > > cases
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found with IDE
> > > or
> > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > demonstrate
> > > my
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not related
> > > much to
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone will
> > > just
> > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly solution
> > > and say
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things better he
> > > or she
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those who
> > > do can
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how do-ocracy
> > > > > should
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem (we had
> > > it
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found after
> > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > handler
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care. Anton,
> > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 = 18
> > > tests
> > > > > to
> > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if we
> > go
> > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and enforces
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to improve
> > > project
> > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when we
> > > expect
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by the
> > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > robust
> > > way,
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed the
> > > existing
> > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix with
> > > better
> > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further tickets
> > > to
> > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim time
> > > to
> > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> > code
> > > base
> > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > arguments
> > > > > will
> > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > commits
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > > massive
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > possibility
> > > of
> > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC report
> > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this (get
> > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will you try
> > > to
> > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > things
> > > for
> > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create ticket
> > and
> > > > > check
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with noop. It
> > is
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > mechanism
> > > > > for
> > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > > saving
> > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me with
> > the
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers are not
> > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this change,
> > > I ask
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > intentionally
> > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach without
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > > reopen the
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why tests
> > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before the
> > > fix was
> > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem in
> > > saving
> > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM Павлухин
> > > Иван
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I would
> > > like to
> > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use no-op
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09, Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> > tests
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to revert
> > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot of
> > > people
> > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything I've
> > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better, just
> > > commit
> > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> > veto,
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > community,
> > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > Павлухин
> > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize what
> > > does
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a very
> > > good
> > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I think it
> > is
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > positive
> > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea to ask
> > > me to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > author
> > > or
> > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community member,
> > > ask
> > > > > you
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > > provide
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to merge
> > > fix of
> > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the explanation
> > > of the
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to rollback
> > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR to
> > > demo
> > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > contribution
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss not
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test failure
> > > fixes
> > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the only
> > > > > option
> > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 13:35,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > > changes
> > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you have to
> > be
> > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this way
> > and
> > > > > what
> > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to hide
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at what
> > > test we
> > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback
> > > changes
> > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:10
> > > PM
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > rollback
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> > became
> > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with authors of
> > > the
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR to
> > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I believe it
> > > will
> > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any pool
> > > inside
> > > > > a
> > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 13:05,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code block
> > > will do
> > > > > a
> > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make the
> > > *bad
> > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a correct
> > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > > failure
> > > > > you
> > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you to
> > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 12:39
> > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > failure
> > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > reason
> > > to
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means these
> > > test
> > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's create a
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+ touched
> > > files in
> > > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > > affected
> > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> > failover
> > > > > test
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there is no
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test should set
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > > simulation
> > > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 12:16
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means "hide
> > any
> > > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > > share
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with a
> > > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > > at
> > > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you have
> > to
> > > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > >

--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Dmitrii,

>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op
to have a proper handler?

Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>
> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> looks good to me so far.
>
> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks like
> we
> > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> >
> > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> >
> > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nikolay,
> > > >
> > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good that
> > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > > nothing
> > > > in
> > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > practical
> > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > create
> > > > a>
> > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> how to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> places
> > > > with
> > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
> got a
> > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
> noop
> > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> covered
> > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> how to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
> can
> > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > > costly.
> > > > So,
> > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
> for
> > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and
> then
> > > > do it
> > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> guarantee
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> believe
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> failure.
> > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> details
> > > if
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> better.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something
> with
> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> implementation as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> Way, -
> > > > and
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> stop
> > > this
> > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> anti-patterns in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > > perfect
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> failure.
> > > > By
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > tests,
> > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> was
> > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > > allowed
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any disagreements
> > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> absolutely
> > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> reverting
> > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> Dmitrii
> > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC Bot.
> Is
> > > he
> > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> guess,
> > > no,
> > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a better
> fix.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in this
> > > thread
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
> you
> > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> don't
> > > > care too
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> facts
> > > we
> > > > need
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test should
> be
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> negative
> > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> without
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > > sharing
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have an
> > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> contributors? I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > > thinking
> > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base class
> for
> > > a
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> with IDE
> > > > or
> > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > demonstrate
> > > > my
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> related
> > > > much to
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
> will
> > > > just
> > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> solution
> > > > and say
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> better he
> > > > or she
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy, those
> who
> > > > do can
> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> do-ocracy
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> (we had
> > > > it
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> after
> > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > > handler
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> Anton,
> > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6 =
> 18
> > > > tests
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better if
> we
> > > go
> > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> enforces
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> improve
> > > > project
> > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> we
> > > > expect
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by
> the
> > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > > robust
> > > > way,
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
> the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> with
> > > > better
> > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> tickets
> > > > to
> > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and Maxim
> time
> > > > to
> > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about keeping
> > > code
> > > > base
> > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > arguments
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > > commits
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR before
> > > > massive
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > possibility
> > > > of
> > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> report
> > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do this
> (get
> > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> you try
> > > > to
> > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > > things
> > > > for
> > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> ticket
> > > and
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> noop. It
> > > is
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> problem in
> > > > saving
> > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> are not
> > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> change,
> > > > I ask
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > intentionally
> > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> without
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this fix,
> > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
> tests
> > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before
> the
> > > > fix was
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM Eduard
> > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem
> in
> > > > saving
> > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> Павлухин
> > > > Иван
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> would
> > > > like to
> > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
> no-op
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained these
> > > tests
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
> revert
> > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A lot
> of
> > > > people
> > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> I've
> > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
> just
> > > > commit
> > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute some
> > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert by
> > > veto,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > community,
> > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > Павлухин
> > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
> what
> > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a
> very
> > > > good
> > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> think it
> > > is
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > > positive
> > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03,
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
> to ask
> > > > me to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > > author
> > > > or
> > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> member,
> > > > ask
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
> merge
> > > > fix of
> > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> explanation
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> rollback
> > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 1:40 PM
> > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide PR
> to
> > > > demo
> > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should discuss
> not
> > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> failure
> > > > fixes
> > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as the
> only
> > > > > > option
> > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 13:35,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, these
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> have to
> > > be
> > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this
> way
> > > and
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable to
> hide
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> what
> > > > test we
> > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> rollback
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> 1:10
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > rollback
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that no-op
> > > became
> > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> authors of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> believe it
> > > > will
> > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
> pool
> > > > inside
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 13:05,
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> block
> > > > will do
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we make
> the
> > > > *bad
> > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> correct
> > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you expect
> > > > failure
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
> you to
> > > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018 at
> > > > 12:39
> > > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > > failure
> > > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
> these
> > > > test
> > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, let's
> create a
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > (may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > umbrella)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > investigate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see 100+
> touched
> > > > files in
> > > > > > > PR and
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have much more
> > > > affected
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems, most of
> > > failover
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occur and there
> is no
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other test
> should set
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if grid hanging
> > > > simulation
> > > > > > > is needed
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > at
> > > > > > 12:16
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-op means
> "hide
> > > any
> > > > > > > problem",
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guarantees.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you
> please
> > > > share
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "no-op"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "strict
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > try-catch with
> a
> > > > check"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 11:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryabov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > написал:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > > check the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always
require to understand what test does and what it tests.

So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
- a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
test,
- what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
checked?
- failure handler influence, etc.

I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate
the idea.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket for
> >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with no-op
> to have a proper handler?
>
> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> >
> > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > looks good to me so far.
> >
> > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> like
> > we
> > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > >
> > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> for
> > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > >
> > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > >
> > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> that
> > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
> > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion from
> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
> > > > nothing
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > > practical
> > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > > create
> > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> > how to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> > places
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
> > got a
> > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
> > noop
> > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> > covered
> > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
> > how to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
> > can
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
> > > > costly.
> > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
> > for
> > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite (and
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch and
> > then
> > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > guarantee
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > believe
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > details
> > > > if
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > better.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > better.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned something
> > with
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > implementation as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> > Way, -
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> > stop
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > anti-patterns in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with (only)
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > failure.
> > > > > By
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if no-op
> > was
> > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
> > > > allowed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> disagreements
> > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > absolutely
> > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > reverting
> > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > Dmitrii
> > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd mutes
> > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> Bot.
> > Is
> > > > he
> > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> > guess,
> > > > no,
> > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> better
> > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> this
> > > > thread
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
> > you
> > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> > don't
> > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> > facts
> > > > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> should
> > be
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > negative
> > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> > without
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
> > > > sharing
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to have
> an
> > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > contributors? I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> class
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with current
> > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> > with IDE
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > demonstrate
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > related
> > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
> > will
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > solution
> > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > better he
> > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> those
> > who
> > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> > (we had
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> > after
> > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
> > > > handler
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> > Anton,
> > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have 100/6
> =
> > 18
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
> if
> > we
> > > > go
> > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > enforces
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > improve
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases when
> > we
> > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused by
> > the
> > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in more
> > > > robust
> > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
> > the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> > with
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> > tickets
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> Maxim
> > time
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> keeping
> > > > code
> > > > > base
> > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > arguments
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton Vinogradov
> <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
> > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
> > > > commits
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> before
> > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > possibility
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> > report
> > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> this
> > (get
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
> > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> > you try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to do
> > > > things
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > ticket
> > > > and
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > noop. It
> > > > is
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
> > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > problem in
> > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> > are not
> > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> > change,
> > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> > without
> > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> fix,
> > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
> > tests
> > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why" before
> > the
> > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> Eduard
> > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the problem
> > in
> > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> > Павлухин
> > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> > would
> > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
> > no-op
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> these
> > > > tests
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
> > revert
> > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
> lot
> > of
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> > I've
> > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
> > just
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
> some
> > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
> by
> > > > veto,
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > community,
> > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
> > what
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added a
> > very
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > think it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it overweight
> > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:03,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
> > to ask
> > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not an
> > > > author
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> > member,
> > > > > ask
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
> to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
> > merge
> > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > explanation
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> > rollback
> > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
> PR
> > to
> > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> discuss
> > not
> > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> > failure
> > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
> the
> > only
> > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 13:35,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> these
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> > have to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed this
> > way
> > > > and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
> to
> > hide
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
> > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> > what
> > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > rollback
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > 1:10
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> no-op
> > > > became
> > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > authors of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a PR
> > to
> > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > believe it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
> > pool
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> > block
> > > > > will do
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> make
> > the
> > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > correct
> > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> expect
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
> > you to
> > > > > > > > rollback these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> > 2018 at
> > > > > 12:39
> > > > > > > > PM Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > handler as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is the
> > > > reason
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
> > these
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

[Dmitrii Ryabov]

Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for
no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:

> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will always
> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>
> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> test,
> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> checked?
> - failure handler influence, etc.
>
> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to demonstrate
> the idea.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> for
> > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> no-op
> > to have a proper handler?
> >
> > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> step.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > >
> > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > looks good to me so far.
> > >
> > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> > like
> > > we
> > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> > for
> > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > that
> > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> tests
> > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> from
> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
> > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> absolutely
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
> > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> (and
> > > > > create
> > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> approach
> > > how to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
> > > places
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> not
> > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> require
> > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
> > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> approach
> > > how to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away
> I
> > > can
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> be
> > > > > costly.
> > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> happen
> > > for
> > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> (and
> > > > > create
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> and
> > > then
> > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > guarantee
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > believe
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > details
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
> > > better.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> something
> > > with
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > implementation as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
> > > Way, -
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
> > > stop
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> (only)
> > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > failure.
> > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> no-op
> > > was
> > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> are
> > > > > allowed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > disagreements
> > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> mutes
> > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > Bot.
> > > Is
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
> > > guess,
> > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > better
> > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > this
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> More
> > > you
> > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
> > > don't
> > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
> > > facts
> > > > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > negative
> > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
> > > without
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> of
> > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> have
> > an
> > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > contributors? I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> of
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > class
> > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> current
> > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
> > > with IDE
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > related
> > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> someone
> > > will
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > solution
> > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > better he
> > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > those
> > > who
> > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
> > > (we had
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
> > > after
> > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> stop-node
> > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
> > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> 100/6
> > =
> > > 18
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > enforces
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > improve
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
> when
> > > we
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
> more
> > > > > robust
> > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> revealed
> > > the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
> > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
> > > with
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
> > > tickets
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> > Maxim
> > > time
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > keeping
> > > > > code
> > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
> > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> Vinogradov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> to
> > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > commits
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > before
> > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > possibility
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
> > > report
> > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > this
> > > (get
> > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> Dmitriy
> > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
> > > you try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to
> do
> > > > > things
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > ticket
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > noop. It
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> contributed
> > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > problem in
> > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to
> me
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
> > > are not
> > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
> > > change,
> > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
> > > without
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> > fix,
> > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons
> why
> > > tests
> > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> before
> > > the
> > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> problem
> > > in
> > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
> > > Павлухин
> > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
> > > would
> > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> "use
> > > no-op
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > these
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason
> to
> > > revert
> > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
> > > I've
> > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> better,
> > > just
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
> > some
> > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
> > by
> > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
> > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> summarize
> > > what
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> added a
> > > very
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > > think it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> overweight
> > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 14:03,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> idea
> > > to ask
> > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not
> an
> > > > > author
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
> > > member,
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
> > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable
> to
> > > merge
> > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > explanation
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
> > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
> > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
> > PR
> > > to
> > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > discuss
> > > not
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
> > > failure
> > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
> > the
> > > only
> > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 13:35,
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> > these
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> > acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
> > > have to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
> this
> > > way
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
> > to
> > > hide
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as
> a
> > > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
> > > what
> > > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > > rollback
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > 1:10
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> > no-op
> > > > > became
> > > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > > authors of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a
> PR
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > > believe it
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from
> any
> > > pool
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> г.
> > в
> > > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
> > > block
> > > > > > will do
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
> > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> > make
> > > the
> > > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > > correct
> > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > expect
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Nikolay,

Answering your questions a couple of emails ago.

Only one valid reason to avoid NoOp it the risk
- we don't correctly understand test meaning by class name, we don't catch
it's expected flow and
- there is some test which uses NoOp now, but should not.

Any failure in such test included to set of NoOp handlers test can be
hidden and the test will pass for whatever reason, e.g. poor validation of
expected behavior. So suggested analog to this is muted failures, which
runs on TC but don't signal us that something is wrong.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:53, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> always require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>
> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> test,
> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> checked?
> - failure handler influence, etc.
>
> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate the idea.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Dmitrii,
>>
>> >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>> for
>> >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
>> no-op
>> to have a proper handler?
>>
>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final step.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Dmitrii Ryabov,
>> >
>> > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
>> > looks good to me so far.
>> >
>> > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
>> like
>> > we
>> > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>> > >
>> > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>> for
>> > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>> > >
>> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
>> > >
>> > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>> > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Nikolay,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
>> that
>> > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100 tests
>> > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
>> from
>> > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve the
>> > > > > patch then let's do it.
>> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
>> >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
>> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has absolutely
>> > > > nothing
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is a
>> > > > practical
>> > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Ivan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>> (and
>> > > > create
>> > > > > a>
>> > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I support this idea.
>> > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
>> > how to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>> > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
>> > > > > product(Ignite
>> > > > > > > > and others).
>> > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
>> > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find all
>> > places
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>> > > > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have not
>> > got a
>> > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests require
>> > noop
>> > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems are
>> > covered
>> > > > > > > > > there.
>> > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different approach
>> > how to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a cheap
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight away I
>> > can
>> > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could be
>> > > > costly.
>> > > > > So,
>> > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can happen
>> > for
>> > > > > sure:
>> > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>> (and
>> > > > create
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
>> > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
>> and
>> > then
>> > > > > do it
>> > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
>> > guarantee
>> > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
>> > believe
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>> > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>> > failure.
>> > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
>> > details
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed commit.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
>> > better.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may be
>> > better.
>> > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > still, it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>> something
>> > with
>> > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > exception
>> > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>> > implementation as
>> > > > > well.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The Apache
>> > Way, -
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > I'll
>> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until we
>> > stop
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > nonsense. If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>> > anti-patterns in
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > community,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
>> (only)
>> > > > perfect
>> > > > > > > code.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>> > failure.
>> > > > > By
>> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>> > ~50000-~100=~49900
>> > > > > tests,
>> > > > > > > > and we’re
>> > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
>> no-op
>> > was
>> > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we are
>> > > > allowed
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > have with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>> disagreements
>> > > > > here? Why
>> > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>> > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > unconditionally
>> > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>> > reverting
>> > > > > > > > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
>> > Dmitrii
>> > > > R.?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>> mutes
>> > > > > problem, as
>> > > > > > > > well, to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
>> Bot.
>> > Is
>> > > > he
>> > > > > > > > deserved to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution? I
>> > guess,
>> > > > no,
>> > > > > > > > especially
>> > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>> better
>> > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
>> this
>> > > > thread
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > join
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
>> > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others. More
>> > you
>> > > > > > > > contribute,- more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all - I
>> > don't
>> > > > > care too
>> > > > > > > > much
>> > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To provide
>> > facts
>> > > > we
>> > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > to do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>> > negative
>> > > > > > > > feedback, people
>> > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was enabled
>> > without
>> > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid of
>> > > > sharing
>> > > > > > > this.
>> > > > > > > > Result:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>> have an
>> > > > > > > absolutely
>> > > > > > > > perfect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>> > contributors? I
>> > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > not, and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>> > principle'.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead of
>> > > > thinking
>> > > > > > > > about Apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
>> class
>> > for
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > cases
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
>> current
>> > > > > > > > implementation:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily found
>> > with IDE
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > grep
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > search.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>> > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>> > related
>> > > > > much to
>> > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If someone
>> > will
>> > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > come to the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > list
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>> > solution
>> > > > > and say
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to nowhere.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
>> > better he
>> > > > > or she
>> > > > > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>> those
>> > who
>> > > > > do can
>> > > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>> > do-ocracy
>> > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > (and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden problem
>> > (we had
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > before
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be found
>> > after
>> > > > > > > > re-checks of
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their stop-node
>> > > > handler
>> > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who care.
>> > Anton,
>> > > > > > > Andrew,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>> 100/6 =
>> > 18
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > double
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things better
>> if
>> > we
>> > > > go
>> > > > > > > > together. And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
>> > enforces
>> > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > else
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
>> > improve
>> > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > code but
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
>> when
>> > we
>> > > > > expect
>> > > > > > > > critical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is caused
>> by
>> > the
>> > > > > > > > imperfect logic
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
>> more
>> > > > robust
>> > > > > way,
>> > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > using
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just revealed
>> > the
>> > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > flaws,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known anti
>> > pattern.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same fix
>> > with
>> > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > styling?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the further
>> > tickets
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > cleanup
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > mess
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
>> Maxim
>> > time
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > made and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>> > > > > "improvements".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
>> keeping
>> > > > code
>> > > > > base
>> > > > > > > > clean.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in case
>> > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste code.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>> Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
>> perfect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready to
>> > > > > continue :)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such over-copy-pasted
>> > > > commits
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > future.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>> > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
>> before
>> > > > > massive
>> > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
>> > > > possibility
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > using any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with TC
>> > report
>> > > > > > > attached.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>> > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
>> this
>> > (get
>> > > > > rid
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an option.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM Dmitriy
>> > > > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here will
>> > you try
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > research a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others to
>> do
>> > > > things
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > you,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
>> > ticket
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
>> > noop. It
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > locate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as contributed
>> > > > > mechanism
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > failing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>> > Vinogradov
>> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
>> > problem in
>> > > > > saving
>> > > > > > > > No-Op for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to me
>> > with
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
>> > choice.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op handlers
>> > are not
>> > > > > ok!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do this
>> > change,
>> > > > > I ask
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
>> > > > intentionally
>> > > > > > > > activate
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide approach
>> > without
>> > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
>> fix,
>> > > > > reopen the
>> > > > > > > > issue
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation first.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons why
>> > tests
>> > > > > fail.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
>> before
>> > the
>> > > > > fix was
>> > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after rollback.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>> Eduard
>> > > > > > > Shangareev
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
>> problem
>> > in
>> > > > > saving
>> > > > > > > > No-Op for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM
>> > Павлухин
>> > > > > Иван
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch. And I
>> > would
>> > > > > like to
>> > > > > > > > respell
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to "use
>> > no-op
>> > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
>> > Dmitriy
>> > > > > Pavlov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
>> these
>> > > > tests
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
>> failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason to
>> > revert
>> > > > > > > other's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better. A
>> lot
>> > of
>> > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > can do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert everything
>> > I've
>> > > > > > > > contributed? I
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > hope
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things better,
>> > just
>> > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > further
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you contribute
>> some
>> > > > > > > > improvements
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > later.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revert
>> by
>> > > > veto,
>> > > > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > justify
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
>> > > > community,
>> > > > > > > > please feel
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > free
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 14:53,
>> > > > Павлухин
>> > > > > > > Иван <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please summarize
>> > what
>> > > > > does
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch added
>> a
>> > very
>> > > > > good
>> > > > > > > > thing --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
>> > think it
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
>> overweight
>> > > > > positive
>> > > > > > > > result? And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 14:03,
>> > Anton
>> > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect idea
>> > to ask
>> > > > > me to
>> > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PR
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm not
>> an
>> > > > author
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > reviewer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a community
>> > member,
>> > > > > ask
>> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not able
>> to
>> > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable to
>> > merge
>> > > > > fix of
>> > > > > > > > unknown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste fix".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
>> > explanation
>> > > > > of the
>> > > > > > > > problem
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not to
>> > rollback
>> > > > > > > > something,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
>> > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
>> > 1:40 PM
>> > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please provide
>> PR
>> > to
>> > > > > demo
>> > > > > > > > your idea.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to revert a
>> > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
>> discuss
>> > not
>> > > > > > > Dmitrii
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a test
>> > failure
>> > > > > fixes
>> > > > > > > > later
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest as
>> the
>> > only
>> > > > > > > option
>> > > > > > > > - ok
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> > 13:35,
>> > > > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
>> these
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > allow
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected failures.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
>> acceptable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer, you
>> > have to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > ready to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
>> this
>> > way
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > was the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's unacceptable
>> to
>> > hide
>> > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you, as a
>> > > > > reviewer, to
>> > > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and at
>> > what
>> > > > > test we
>> > > > > > > > solved by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
>> > rollback
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > in case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
>> at
>> > 1:10
>> > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do any
>> > > > rollback
>> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
>> no-op
>> > > > became
>> > > > > > > > default long
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > time
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
>> > authors of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide a
>> PR
>> > to
>> > > > > > > > demonstrate your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
>> > believe it
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from any
>> > pool
>> > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > node.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
>> г. в
>> > > > 13:05,
>> > > > > > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which code
>> > block
>> > > > > will do
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > throw?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the
>> > test.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
>> make
>> > the
>> > > > > *bad
>> > > > > > > > *test even
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
>> > correct
>> > > > fix.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
>> expect
>> > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > have to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special handler.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask
>> > you to
>> > > > > > > > rollback these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
>> > 2018 at
>> > > > > 12:39
>> > > > > > > > PM Andrey
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaningful
>> > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > handler as a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is
>> the
>> > > > reason
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > fallback
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noop
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it means
>> > these
>> > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > become
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > failed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
demonstrate
>> the idea.

Dmitriy,
Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
unacceptable code merge situation.
Such merges should NEVER happen again.
Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
and fixes without proper reason investigation.
Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he merged.
The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.

Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some objections.
But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.

Dmitrii,
>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
reasons for
>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.

In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
the code will be rolled back.
Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons for
> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
>
> > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> always
> > require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> >
> > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
> > test,
> > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it is
> > checked?
> > - failure handler influence, etc.
> >
> > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
> > the idea.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> > for
> > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> > no-op
> > > to have a proper handler?
> > >
> > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > step.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > >
> > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > looks good to me so far.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> > > like
> > > > we
> > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > > for
> > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > > that
> > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > tests
> > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > from
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> the
> > > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > absolutely
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> a
> > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > (and
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > approach
> > > > how to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> cheap
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> all
> > > > places
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > not
> > > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > require
> > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> are
> > > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > approach
> > > > how to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> cheap
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> away
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > be
> > > > > > costly.
> > > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> > happen
> > > > for
> > > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > (and
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > guarantee
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> in
> > > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > details
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> be
> > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> be
> > > > better.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > something
> > > > with
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > implementation as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The
> Apache
> > > > Way, -
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> we
> > > > stop
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > (only)
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> test
> > > > failure.
> > > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> > no-op
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > are
> > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > disagreements
> > > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > mutes
> > > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > Bot.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> I
> > > > guess,
> > > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > better
> > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > this
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > More
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> provide
> > > > facts
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> enabled
> > > > without
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > of
> > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > have
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > contributors? I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > of
> > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > class
> > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> > current
> > > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> found
> > > > with IDE
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > related
> > > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> > someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > solution
> > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to
> nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > better he
> > > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > those
> > > > who
> > > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> problem
> > > > (we had
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> found
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> > stop-node
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who
> care.
> > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > 100/6
> > > =
> > > > 18
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things
> better
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > enforces
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > improve
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> caused
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > more
> > > > > > robust
> > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > revealed
> > > > the
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known
> anti
> > > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same
> fix
> > > > with
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the
> further
> > > > tickets
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > Maxim
> > > > time
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > keeping
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in
> case
> > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste
> code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > to
> > > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> > over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > commits
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > before
> > > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with
> TC
> > > > report
> > > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > this
> > > > (get
> > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > Dmitriy
> > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here
> will
> > > > you try
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others
> to
> > do
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > noop. It
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> > contributed
> > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > > problem in
> > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > me
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> handlers
> > > > are not
> > > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do
> this
> > > > change,
> > > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide
> approach
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback this
> > > fix,
> > > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> > first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the reasons
> > why
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> > before
> > > > the
> > > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after
> rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > problem
> > > > in
> > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> PM
> > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch.
> And I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> > "use
> > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > these
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no reason
> > to
> > > > revert
> > > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things better.
> A
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert
> everything
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> > better,
> > > > just
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you
> contribute
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to
> revert
> > > by
> > > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with all
> > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 14:53,
> > > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > summarize
> > > > what
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> > added a
> > > > very
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests. And I
> > > > think it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> > overweight
> > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 14:03,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> > idea
> > > > to ask
> > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm
> not
> > an
> > > > > > author
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a
> community
> > > > member,
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not
> able
> > > to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not acceptable
> > to
> > > > merge
> > > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste
> fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not
> to
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what it
> > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> at
> > > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please
> provide
> > > PR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to
> revert a
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > > discuss
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a
> test
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest
> as
> > > the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> в
> > > > 13:35,
> > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before,
> > > these
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected
> > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> > > acceptable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reviewer,
> you
> > > > have to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to be fixed
> > this
> > > > way
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's
> unacceptable
> > > to
> > > > hide
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I ask you,
> as
> > a
> > > > > > > reviewer, to
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem and
> at
> > > > what
> > > > > > > test we
> > > > > > > > > > solved by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5,
> 2018
> > > at
> > > > 1:10
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will not do
> any
> > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention that
> > > no-op
> > > > > > became
> > > > > > > > > > default long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection with
> > > > authors of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > NoOp->FailTest+stopNode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide
> a
> > PR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > demonstrate your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceptions. I
> > > > believe it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated from
> > any
> > > > pool
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> > г.
> > > в
> > > > > > 13:05,
> > > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which
> code
> > > > block
> > > > > > > will do
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > throw?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on
> the
> > > > test.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we
> > > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > *bad
> > > > > > > > > > *test even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *worse*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a
> > > > correct
> > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you
> > > expect
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Anton, I have another proposal. We stop, for now, then you will chill a
little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then on
Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
constructive manner.

Trying to win in a match "my revert is bigger than yours/my code is better
than yours" will not help to anyone.

чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 15:02, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> >> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
> >> the idea.
>
> Dmitriy,
> Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> unacceptable code merge situation.
> Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
> and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> merged.
> The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
>
> Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> objections.
> But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
>
> Dmitrii,
> >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> reasons for
> >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
> the code will be rolled back.
> Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> for
> > no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
> >
> > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> >
> > > BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> > always
> > > require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > >
> > > So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> > > - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> this
> > > test,
> > > - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
> is
> > > checked?
> > > - failure handler influence, etc.
> > >
> > > I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > demonstrate
> > > the idea.
> > >
> > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >
> > > > >> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > > for
> > > > >> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> > > no-op
> > > > to have a proper handler?
> > > >
> > > > Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > > step.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > > looks good to me so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> looks
> > > > like
> > > > > we
> > > > > > create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > ticket
> > > > for
> > > > > > appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > > I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> good
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > tests
> > > > > > > > investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> opinion
> > > from
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > the
> > > > > > > > patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It
> is
> > a
> > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > (and
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > a>
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > approach
> > > > > how to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > cheap
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> the
> > > > > > > > product(Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > and others).
> > > > > > > > > > > I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > > > > > > I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > all
> > > > > places
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
> have
> > > not
> > > > > got a
> > > > > > > > > > > > direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > require
> > > > > noop
> > > > > > > > > > > > handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > are
> > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > approach
> > > > > how to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > cheap
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > away
> > > I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> could
> > > be
> > > > > > > costly.
> > > > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in that direction I see following options which can
> > > happen
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > sure:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > (and
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> patch
> > > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > do it
> > > > > > > > > > > > better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
> because I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> test
> > > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By this commit, we had unmuted (possible)
> failures
> > in
> > > > > > > > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
> minor
> > > > > details
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > be
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this
> approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > be
> > > > > better.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > still, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > something
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > implementation as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This case here is a big thing related to The
> > Apache
> > > > > Way, -
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it makes me switched into fight-mode -
> until
> > we
> > > > > stop
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > nonsense. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > anti-patterns in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > (only)
> > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > test
> > > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > By
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > > > tests,
> > > > > > > > > > > and we’re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > no-op
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > copy-pasted,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren’t we?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To everyone arguing about the number of tests
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > disagreements
> > > > > > > > here? Why
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > unconditionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > muted failures?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positive contribution into product stability
> from
> > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > R.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > mutes
> > > > > > > > problem, as
> > > > > > > > > > > well, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate mutes with links resolved issues in the
> TC
> > > > Bot.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > deserved to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read denouncing comments about the
> contribution?
> > I
> > > > > guess,
> > > > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > better
> > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now a paramount thing for me if people
> in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process or not. People may be not happy with
> some
> > > > > > > > > > > decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > More
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > contribute,- more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can decide. If you don't contribute at all
> -
> > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > provide
> > > > > facts
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without deep analysis?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, if someone comes to list and provide
> just
> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > > feedback, people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > enabled
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion because of this, someone may be
> afraid
> > > of
> > > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > Result:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > have
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > contributors? I
> > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > not, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > principle'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid copy paste code
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > about Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way all the time :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should use some kind of marker
> base
> > > > class
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > found
> > > > > with IDE
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > grep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared proof of concept pull request
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, let me explain one thing which is
> not
> > > > > related
> > > > > > > > much to
> > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > come to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and say it is not good commit, it is a
> silly
> > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rework these patches - it is a road to
> > nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone sees the potential to make
> things
> > > > > better he
> > > > > > > > or she
> > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or commits patch). This is named
> do-ocracy,
> > > > those
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > > do can
> > > > > > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this topic it is a perfect example of
> how
> > > > > do-ocracy
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > problem
> > > > > (we had
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > found
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > re-checks of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > stop-node
> > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revisiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op test list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > care.
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii &
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > 100/6
> > > > =
> > > > > 18
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > double
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each contributor. We can make things
> > better
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > together. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is how a community works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone just come to list to criticize
> and
> > > > > enforces
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all things, he or she probably don't want
> to
> > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > code but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Tests in these classes check fail
> cases
> > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > caused
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > imperfect logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests, that should be reworked
> in
> > > more
> > > > > > > robust
> > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > revealed
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > flaws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid commits like
> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy paste coding style is well known
> > anti
> > > > > pattern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we have another option to do same
> > fix
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > styling?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accepting such patches leads to the
> > further
> > > > > tickets
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's take a significant amount of my
> and
> > > > Maxim
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > made and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cleanup patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't accept patch with copy
> paste
> > > > > > > > "improvements".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > keeping
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > case
> > > > > > > arguments
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should we make all things
> > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a single fix?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I'm ok in case someone
> ready
> > > to
> > > > > > > > continue :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, we should avoid such
> > > over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > > commits
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have TC run results for the
> PR
> > > > before
> > > > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's create a ticket to
> investigate
> > > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > using any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure handler for such tests with
> > TC
> > > > > report
> > > > > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's ok in case someone ready to
> do
> > > > this
> > > > > (get
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, if you care enough here
> > will
> > > > > you try
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > research a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests? Or you are asking others
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like idea from Andrew to
> create
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving towards 0....10 tests
> with
> > > > > noop. It
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden method now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So threat this change as
> > > contributed
> > > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > problem in
> > > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> > all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several (less than 10) is ok
> to
> > > me
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail and why no-op is a
> better
> > > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > handlers
> > > > > are not
> > > > > > > > ok!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't ask you to re-do
> > this
> > > > > change,
> > > > > > > > I ask
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach for tests which
> > > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > > > activate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking me to provide
> > approach
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without no-op handler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My approach is to rollback
> this
> > > > fix,
> > > > > > > > reopen the
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a proper investigation
> > > first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, let's stop this
> game.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to discuss the
> reasons
> > > why
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case no-one checked "why"
> > > before
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > fix was
> > > > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start doing this after
> > rollback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49
> PM
> > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get. What is the
> > > problem
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > saving
> > > > > > > > > > > No-Op for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we keep No-Op for
> all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > PM
> > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > Иван
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I meant that patch.
> > And I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > respell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "massive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no-op handler restore" to
> > > "use
> > > > > no-op
> > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> 15:09,
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov
> explained
> > > > these
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these tests do test
> > > failures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, there is no
> reason
> > > to
> > > > > revert
> > > > > > > > > > other's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to do things
> better.
> > A
> > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we revert
> > everything
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > contributed? I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can do things
> > > better,
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be happy if you
> > contribute
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to
> > revert
> > > > by
> > > > > > > veto,
> > > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would discuss it with
> all
> > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > > please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > 14:53,
> > > > > > > Павлухин
> > > > > > > > > > Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please
> > > summarize
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I see, the patch
> > > added a
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > thing --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler in tests.
> And I
> > > > > think it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm and does it
> > > overweight
> > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > > result? And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > 14:03,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an incorrect
> > > idea
> > > > > to ask
> > > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly since I'm
> > not
> > > an
> > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I, as a
> > community
> > > > > member,
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you're not
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not
> acceptable
> > > to
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > fix of
> > > > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times copy-paste
> > fix".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please provide the
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.s. My goal is not
> > to
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding what
> it
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, please
> > provide
> > > > PR
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > demo
> > > > > > > > > > > your idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > louder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to
> > revert a
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear for others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we should
> > > > discuss
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection of
> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you will do a
> > test
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StopNode+FailTest
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > > > - ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 5 дек. 2018
> г.
> > в
> > > > > 13:35,
> > > > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said
> before,
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful
> > > >

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Anton.

I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.

1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.

So, this fix make things better.

I think we shouldn't revert it.

I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.

Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?

On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:

>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>
> Dmitriy,
> Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> unacceptable code merge situation.
> Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive duplication
> and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he

merged.
> The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
>
> Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
objections.

> But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
>
> Dmitrii,
>>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> reasons for
>>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>
> In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday evening,
> the code will be rolled back.
> Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>

wrote:
>
>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
for

>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
>>
>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
>>
>>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
>> always
>>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
>>>
>>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
>>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of this
>>> test,
>>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it

is

>>> checked?
>>> - failure handler influence, etc.
>>>
>>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
>> demonstrate
>>> the idea.
>>>
>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Dmitrii,
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
>>> no-op
>>>> to have a proper handler?
>>>>
>>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
>>> step.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
>>>>> looks good to me so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
>>>> like
>>>>> we
>>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
>> ticket
>>>> for
>>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
>>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
>>> tests
>>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
>>> from
>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
>> the
>>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> [hidden email]
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
>>> absolutely
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
>> a
>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a>
>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
>>>>>>>> product(Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> and others).
>>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
>>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
>> all
>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
>>> not
>>>>> got a
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
>>> require
>>>>> noop
>>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
>> are
>>>>> covered
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
>>> approach
>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
>> cheap
>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
>> away
>>> I
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
>>> be
>>>>>>> costly.
>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
>>> happen
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sure:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
>>> (and
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
>>> and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> do it
>>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
>>>>> details
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
>> commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
>> be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> still, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
>>> something
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
>>>>> implementation as
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
>> Apache
>>>>> Way, -
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
>> we
>>>>> stop
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
>>>>> anti-patterns in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
>>> (only)
>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
>> test
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
>>> no-op
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
>>> are
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> have with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
>>>> disagreements
>>>>>>>> here? Why
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
>>>>> reverting
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>> R.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
>>> mutes
>>>>>>>> problem, as
>>>>>>>>>>> well, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
>>>> Bot.
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
>> I
>>>>> guess,
>>>>>>> no,
>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
>>>> better
>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
>>>> this
>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
>>> More
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
>> I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> care too
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
>> provide
>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
>>>> should
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
>> enabled
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
>>> of
>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
>>> have
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
>>>>> contributors? I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> not, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
>>>>> principle'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
>>> of
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
>>>> class
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
>> found
>>>>> with IDE
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> grep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> much to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
>>> someone
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>> and say
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
>> nowhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
>>>>> better he
>>>>>>>> or she
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
>>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> do can
>>>>>>>>>>> make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
>>>>> do-ocracy
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
>> problem
>>>>> (we had
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
>> found
>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
>>> stop-node
>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
>> care.
>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
>>> 100/6
>>>> =
>>>>> 18
>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
>> better
>>>> if
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> together. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
>>>>> enforces
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>> code but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
>>> when
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
>> caused
>>> by
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
>>> more
>>>>>>> robust
>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
>>> revealed
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
>> Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
>> anti
>>>>> pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
>> fix
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> styling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
>> further
>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
>>>> Maxim
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> made and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
>>>>>>>> "improvements".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
>>>> keeping
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
>> case
>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
>>> Vinogradov
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
>>> to
>>>>>>>> continue :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
>>> over-copy-pasted
>>>>>>> commits
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
>>>>> Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
>>>> before
>>>>>>>> massive
>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> using any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
>> TC
>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>>> attached.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
>>>> this
>>>>> (get
>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
>>> option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
>> will
>>>>> you try
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> research a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
>> to
>>> do
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
>>>>> noop. It
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
>>> contributed
>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
>>>>> Vinogradov
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>>>> problem in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
>> all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
>>> me
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
>> handlers
>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>> ok!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
>> this
>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>> I ask
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>> activate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
>> approach
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
>>>> fix,
>>>>>>>> reopen the
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
>>> why
>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
>>> before
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fix was
>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
>> rollback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
>>> problem
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> saving
>>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
>> PM
>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>> Иван
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
>> And I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>> respell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
>>> "use
>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
>>>> these
>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
>>> to
>>>>> revert
>>>>>>>>>> other's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
>> A
>>>> lot
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
>> everything
>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
>>> better,
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
>> contribute
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
>> revert
>>>> by
>>>>>>> veto,
>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>> please feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>> 14:53,
>>>>>>> Павлухин
>>>>>>>>>> Иван <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
>>> summarize
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
>>> added a
>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>> thing --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
>>>>> think it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
>>> overweight
>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>> result? And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
>>> 14:03,
>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
>>> idea
>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>> me to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
>> not
>>> an
>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
>> community
>>>>> member,
>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
>> able
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
>>> to
>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>> fix of
>>>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
>> fix".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
>> to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
>> at
>>>>> 1:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
>> provide
>>>> PR
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> demo
>>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
>> revert a
>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
>>>> discuss
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
>> test
>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
>> as
>>>> the
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> - ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
>> в
>>>>> 13:35,
>>>>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
>>>> these
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
>> you
>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
>>> this
>>>>> way
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
>> unacceptable
>>>> to
>>>>> hide
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
>> as
>>> a
>>>>>>>> reviewer, to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
>> at
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> test we
>>>>>>>>>>> solved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
>> 2018
>>>> at
>>>>> 1:10
>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
>> any
>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>> no-op
>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>>>> default long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
>>>>> authors of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

>> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
>> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then
on
>> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
>> constructive manner.
Agree

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anton.
>
> I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
>
> 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
>
> So, this fix make things better.
>
> I think we shouldn't revert it.
>
> I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
>
> Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
>
> On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > demonstrate
> >>> the idea.
> >
> > Dmitriy,
> > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> duplication
> > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> merged.
> > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way unacceptable.
> >
> > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> objections.
> > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> >
> > Dmitrii,
> >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > reasons for
> >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> needed.
> >
> > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why every
> > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> evening,
> > the code will be rolled back.
> > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> for
> >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if needed.
> >>
> >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> >>
> >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> >> always
> >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> >>>
> >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to add
> >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> this
> >>> test,
> >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how it
> is
> >>> checked?
> >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> >>>
> >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> >> demonstrate
> >>> the idea.
> >>>
> >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>>> Dmitrii,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create ticket
> >>> for
> >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests with
> >>> no-op
> >>>> to have a proper handler?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> >>> step.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it looks
> >>>> like
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> >> ticket
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> >>> tests
> >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> >>> from
> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> >>> absolutely
> >>>>>>> nothing
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> >> a
> >>>>>>> practical
> >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> >>> (and
> >>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>> a>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >>> approach
> >>>>> how to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> >> cheap
> >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> >> all
> >>>>> places
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> >>> not
> >>>>> got a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> >>> require
> >>>>> noop
> >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> >> are
> >>>>> covered
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> >>> approach
> >>>>> how to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> >> cheap
> >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> >> away
> >>> I
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> >>> be
> >>>>>>> costly.
> >>>>>>>> So,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> >>> happen
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> sure:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> >>> (and
> >>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> >>> and
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>>>> do it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> >>>>> guarantee
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> >>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> >>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> >>>>> details
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> >> commit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> >> be
> >>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> >> be
> >>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> >>> something
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> >>>>> implementation as
> >>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> >> Apache
> >>>>> Way, -
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> >> we
> >>>>> stop
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> >>>>> anti-patterns in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> >>> (only)
> >>>>>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> >> test
> >>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>> By
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> >>>>>>>> tests,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> >>> no-op
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> >>> are
> >>>>>>> allowed
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> >>>> disagreements
> >>>>>>>> here? Why
> >>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> >>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> >>>>> reverting
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> >>>>> Dmitrii
> >>>>>>> R.?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> >>> mutes
> >>>>>>>> problem, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> >>>> Bot.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> >> I
> >>>>> guess,
> >>>>>>> no,
> >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> >>>> better
> >>>>> fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> join
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> >>> More
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> >> I
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> care too
> >>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> >> provide
> >>>>> facts
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> >>>> should
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> >>>>> negative
> >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> >> enabled
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>>>> proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> sharing
> >>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> >>> have
> >>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> >>>>> contributors? I
> >>>>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> >>>>> principle'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> >>>> class
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> >>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> >> found
> >>>>> with IDE
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> grep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> >>>>>>> demonstrate
> >>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> >>>>> related
> >>>>>>>> much to
> >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> >>> someone
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> >>>>> solution
> >>>>>>>> and say
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> >> nowhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> >>>>> better he
> >>>>>>>> or she
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> >>>> those
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>>>> do can
> >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> >>>>> do-ocracy
> >>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> >> problem
> >>>>> (we had
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> >> found
> >>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> >>> stop-node
> >>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> >> care.
> >>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> >>> 100/6
> >>>> =
> >>>>> 18
> >>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> double
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> >> better
> >>>> if
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> >>>>> enforces
> >>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> >>>>> improve
> >>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> >> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> >>> when
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> >> caused
> >>> by
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> >>> more
> >>>>>>> robust
> >>>>>>>> way,
> >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> >>> revealed
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> >> Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> >> anti
> >>>>> pattern.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> >> fix
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> >> further
> >>>>> tickets
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> >>>> Maxim
> >>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> >>>> keeping
> >>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>> base
> >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> >> case
> >>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> >> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> >>> Vinogradov
> >>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> >>>> perfect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>> continue :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> >>> over-copy-pasted
> >>>>>>> commits
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> >>>>> Mashenkov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> >>>> before
> >>>>>>>> massive
> >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> >>>>>>> possibility
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> >> TC
> >>>>> report
> >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> >>>> this
> >>>>> (get
> >>>>>>>> rid
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> >>> option.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> >>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> >> will
> >>>>> you try
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> >> to
> >>> do
> >>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> >>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> >>>>> noop. It
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> >>> contributed
> >>>>>>>> mechanism
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> >>>>> Vinogradov
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> >>>>> problem in
> >>>>>>>> saving
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> >> all?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> >>> me
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> >>>>> choice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> >> handlers
> >>>>> are not
> >>>>>>>> ok!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> >> this
> >>>>> change,
> >>>>>>>> I ask
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> >>>>>>> intentionally
> >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> >> approach
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> >>>> fix,
> >>>>>>>> reopen the
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> >>> first.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> >>> why
> >>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>> fail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> >>> before
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> fix was
> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> >> rollback.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> >>>> Eduard
> >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> >>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> >>> problem
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> saving
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> >> PM
> >>>>> Павлухин
> >>>>>>>> Иван
> >>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> >> And I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> like to
> >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> >>> "use
> >>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> >>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> >>>> these
> >>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> >>> failures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> >>> to
> >>>>> revert
> >>>>>>>>>> other's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> >> A
> >>>> lot
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> >> everything
> >>>>> I've
> >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> >>> better,
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>> commit
> >>>>>>>>>>> further
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> >> contribute
> >>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> >> revert
> >>>> by
> >>>>>>> veto,
> >>>>>>>>>> please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> >>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> >> 14:53,
> >>>>>>> Павлухин
> >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> >>> summarize
> >>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> >>> added a
> >>>>> very
> >>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> >>>>> think it
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> >>> overweight
> >>>>>>>> positive
> >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> >>> 14:03,
> >>>>> Anton
> >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> >>> idea
> >>>>> to ask
> >>>>>>>> me to
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> >> not
> >>> an
> >>>>>>> author
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> >> community
> >>>>> member,
> >>>>>>>> ask
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> >> able
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> >>> to
> >>>>> merge
> >>>>>>>> fix of
> >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
> >> fix".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
> >>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
> >> to
> >>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>> something,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
> >>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> >> at
> >>>>> 1:40 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
> >> provide
> >>>> PR
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> demo
> >>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
> >> revert a
> >>>>>>>> contribution
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
> >>>> discuss
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
> >> test
> >>>>> failure
> >>>>>>>> fixes
> >>>>>>>>>>> later
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
> >> as
> >>>> the
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>> - ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> >> в
> >>>>> 13:35,
> >>>>>>>> Anton
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
> >>>> these
> >>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
> >>> failures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
> >>>> acceptable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
> >> you
> >>>>> have to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> ready to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
> >>> this
> >>>>> way
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>> was the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
> >> unacceptable
> >>>> to
> >>>>> hide
> >>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
> >> as
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>> reviewer, to
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
> >> at
> >>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> test we
> >>>>>>>>>>> solved by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
> >>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>> in case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
> >> 2018
> >>>> at
> >>>>> 1:10
> >>>>>>>> PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
> >> any
> >>>>>>> rollback
> >>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
> >>>> no-op
> >>>>>>> became
> >>>>>>>>>>> default long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
> >>>>> authors of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
>

[Ilya Lantukh]

Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
log, but the test still passes "successfully":

[2018-12-07
18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
[type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
[nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
    at
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)


On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and then
> on
> >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> >> constructive manner.
> Agree
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton.
> >
> > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> >
> > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> >
> > So, this fix make things better.
> >
> > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> >
> > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> >
> > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> >
> > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > demonstrate
> > >>> the idea.
> > >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > duplication
> > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > merged.
> > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > objections.
> > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > reasons for
> > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > needed.
> > >
> > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> every
> > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > evening,
> > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe reasons
> > for
> > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> needed.
> > >>
> > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > >>
> > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation will
> > >> always
> > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > >>>
> > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> add
> > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > this
> > >>> test,
> > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> it
> > is
> > >>> checked?
> > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > >> demonstrate
> > >>> the idea.
> > >>>
> > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> ticket
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> with
> > >>> no-op
> > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the final
> > >>> step.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> looks
> > >>>> like
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > >> ticket
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is good
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > >>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > >>> from
> > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > >>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>> nothing
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>> practical
> > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > >>> (and
> > >>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>> a>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > >>> approach
> > >>>>> how to
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > >> cheap
> > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > >> all
> > >>>>> places
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > >>> not
> > >>>>> got a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > >>> require
> > >>>>> noop
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > >> are
> > >>>>> covered
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > >>> approach
> > >>>>> how to
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > >> cheap
> > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > >> away
> > >>> I
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > >>> be
> > >>>>>>> costly.
> > >>>>>>>> So,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > >>> happen
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > >>> (and
> > >>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>> do it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > >>>>> guarantee
> > >>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > >>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > >>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > >> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > >>>>> details
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > >> commit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > >> be
> > >>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > >> be
> > >>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > >>> something
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > >>>>> implementation as
> > >>>>>>>> well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > >> Apache
> > >>>>> Way, -
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > >> we
> > >>>>> stop
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > >>> (only)
> > >>>>>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > >> test
> > >>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>> By
> > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > >>> no-op
> > >>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > >>> are
> > >>>>>>> allowed
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > >>>> disagreements
> > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > >>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > >>>>> reverting
> > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > >>>>>>> R.?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > >>> mutes
> > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > >>>> Bot.
> > >>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>> he
> > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > >> I
> > >>>>> guess,
> > >>>>>>> no,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>>> thread
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > >>> More
> > >>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > >> I
> > >>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>> care too
> > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > >> provide
> > >>>>> facts
> > >>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > >>>>> negative
> > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > >> enabled
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>> proper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>> sharing
> > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > >>> have
> > >>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > >>>>> contributors? I
> > >>>>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > >>>>> principle'.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>> thinking
> > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > >>>> class
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > >>> current
> > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > >> found
> > >>>>> with IDE
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > >>>>>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > >>>>> related
> > >>>>>>>> much to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > >>> someone
> > >>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > >>>>> solution
> > >>>>>>>> and say
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > >> nowhere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > >>>>> better he
> > >>>>>>>> or she
> > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > >>>> those
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>> do can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > >> problem
> > >>>>> (we had
> > >>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > >> found
> > >>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > >>> stop-node
> > >>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > >> care.
> > >>>>> Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > >>> 100/6
> > >>>> =
> > >>>>> 18
> > >>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > >> better
> > >>>> if
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > >>>>> enforces
> > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > >>>>> improve
> > >>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > >> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > >>> when
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> expect
> > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > >> caused
> > >>> by
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > >>> more
> > >>>>>>> robust
> > >>>>>>>> way,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > >>> revealed
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > >> Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > >> anti
> > >>>>> pattern.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > >> fix
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > >> further
> > >>>>> tickets
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > >>>> Maxim
> > >>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > >>>> keeping
> > >>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>> base
> > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > >> case
> > >>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > >> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > >>> Vinogradov
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > >>>> perfect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > >>>>>>> commits
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > >>>> before
> > >>>>>>>> massive
> > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > >>>>>>> possibility
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > >> TC
> > >>>>> report
> > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>> (get
> > >>>>>>>> rid
> > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > >>> option.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > >>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > >> will
> > >>>>> you try
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > >> to
> > >>> do
> > >>>>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > >>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > >>>>> noop. It
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > >>> contributed
> > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > >>>>> problem in
> > >>>>>>>> saving
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > >> all?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > >>> me
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > >>>>> choice.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > >> handlers
> > >>>>> are not
> > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > >> this
> > >>>>> change,
> > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > >> approach
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > >>>> fix,
> > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > >>> first.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > >>> why
> > >>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > >>> before
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > >> rollback.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > >>>> Eduard
> > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > >>> problem
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> saving
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > >> PM
> > >>>>> Павлухин
> > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > >> And I
> > >>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>> like to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > >>> "use
> > >>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > >>>> these
> > >>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > >>> failures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> revert
> > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > >> A
> > >>>> lot
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > >> everything
> > >>>>> I've
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > >>> better,
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>> commit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > >> contribute
> > >>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > >> revert
> > >>>> by
> > >>>>>>> veto,
> > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > >>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > >> 14:53,
> > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > >>> summarize
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > >>> added a
> > >>>>> very
> > >>>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > >>>>> think it
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > >>> overweight
> > >>>>>>>> positive
> > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > >>> 14:03,
> > >>>>> Anton
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > >>> idea
> > >>>>> to ask
> > >>>>>>>> me to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > >> not
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>> author
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > >> community
> > >>>>> member,
> > >>>>>>>> ask
> > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > >> able
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> merge
> > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times copy-paste
> > >> fix".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide the
> > >>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.s. My goal is not
> > >> to
> > >>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>> something,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what it
> > >>>>> fixes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018
> > >> at
> > >>>>> 1:40 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, please
> > >> provide
> > >>>> PR
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> demo
> > >>>>>>>>>>> your idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> louder
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason to
> > >> revert a
> > >>>>>>>> contribution
> > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear for others.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, we should
> > >>>> discuss
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of no-op.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you will do a
> > >> test
> > >>>>> failure
> > >>>>>>>> fixes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> later
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StopNode+FailTest
> > >> as
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>> option
> > >>>>>>>>>>> - ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г.
> > >> в
> > >>>>> 13:35,
> > >>>>>>>> Anton
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before,
> > >>>> these
> > >>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected
> > >>> failures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not
> > >>>> acceptable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reviewer,
> > >> you
> > >>>>> have to
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ready to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be fixed
> > >>> this
> > >>>>> way
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
> > >> unacceptable
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>> hide
> > >>>>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, I ask you,
> > >> as
> > >>> a
> > >>>>>>>> reviewer, to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem and
> > >> at
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> test we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> solved by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to
> > >>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5,
> > >> 2018
> > >>>> at
> > >>>>> 1:10
> > >>>>>>>> PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not do
> > >> any
> > >>>>>>> rollback
> > >>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention that
> > >>>> no-op
> > >>>>>>> became
> > >>>>>>>>>>> default long
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection with
> > >>>>> authors of
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> previous
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Ilya

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Ilya,

thank you for noticing.

Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,

        throw new AssertionFailedError(message);

So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix

- as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
- and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
correctly failing test.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov


пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <[hidden email]>:

> Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
> log, but the test still passes "successfully":
>
> [2018-12-07
>
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
> handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
> consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
>     at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
>     at
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
>     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and
> then
> > on
> > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > >> constructive manner.
> > Agree
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton.
> > >
> > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > >
> > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > >
> > > So, this fix make things better.
> > >
> > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > >
> > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> > >
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > >
> > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > demonstrate
> > > >>> the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > duplication
> > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > > merged.
> > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > objections.
> > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitrii,
> > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > > reasons for
> > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> > every
> > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > evening,
> > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> reasons
> > > for
> > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > >>
> > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> will
> > > >> always
> > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> > add
> > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > > this
> > > >>> test,
> > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> > it
> > > is
> > > >>> checked?
> > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > >> demonstrate
> > > >>> the idea.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > ticket
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> > with
> > > >>> no-op
> > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> final
> > > >>> step.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> > looks
> > > >>>> like
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > >> ticket
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> good
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > >>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > > >>> from
> > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > >>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > >>> (and
> > > >>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > >>> approach
> > > >>>>> how to
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > >> cheap
> > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > >> all
> > > >>>>> places
> > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > >>> not
> > > >>>>> got a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > >>> require
> > > >>>>> noop
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > >> are
> > > >>>>> covered
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > >>> approach
> > > >>>>> how to
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > >> cheap
> > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > >> away
> > > >>> I
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > >>> happen
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > >>> (and
> > > >>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > >>>>> believe
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > >>>>> failure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > >> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > >>>>> details
> > > >>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > >> commit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> better.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> better.
> > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > >>> something
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > >> Apache
> > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > >> we
> > > >>>>> stop
> > > >>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > >>> (only)
> > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > >> test
> > > >>>>> failure.
> > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > >>> no-op
> > > >>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > >>> are
> > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > >>>> disagreements
> > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > >>>>> reverting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > >>> mutes
> > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > >>>> Bot.
> > > >>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>> he
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> guess,
> > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > >>>> better
> > > >>>>> fix.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > >>> More
> > > >>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > >> provide
> > > >>>>> facts
> > > >>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > >>>>> negative
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > >> enabled
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > >>>> class
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > >>> current
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > >> found
> > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > >>>>> related
> > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > >>> someone
> > > >>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > >>>>> solution
> > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > >> nowhere.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > >>>>> better he
> > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > >>>> those
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > >> problem
> > > >>>>> (we had
> > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > >> found
> > > >>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > >>> stop-node
> > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > >> care.
> > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > >>> 100/6
> > > >>>> =
> > > >>>>> 18
> > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > >> better
> > > >>>> if
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> go
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > >>>>> enforces
> > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > >>>>> improve
> > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > >> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > >>> when
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > >> caused
> > > >>> by
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > >>> more
> > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > >>> revealed
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > >> Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > >> anti
> > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > >> fix
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > >> further
> > > >>>>> tickets
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > >>>> Maxim
> > > >>>>> time
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > >>>> keeping
> > > >>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > >> case
> > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > >> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > >>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > >>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > >>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > >> TC
> > > >>>>> report
> > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>> (get
> > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > >>> option.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > >> will
> > > >>>>> you try
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > >> to
> > > >>> do
> > > >>>>>>> things
> > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > >>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > >>> contributed
> > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > >>>>> problem in
> > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > >> all?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > >>> me
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > >>>>> choice.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > >> handlers
> > > >>>>> are not
> > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > >> this
> > > >>>>> change,
> > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > >> approach
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > >>>> fix,
> > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > >>> first.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > >>> why
> > > >>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > >>> before
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > >> rollback.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > >>>> Eduard
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > >>> problem
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > >> PM
> > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > >> And I
> > > >>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > >>> "use
> > > >>>>> no-op
> > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > >>>> these
> > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > >>> failures.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> revert
> > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > >> A
> > > >>>> lot
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > >> everything
> > > >>>>> I've
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > >>> better,
> > > >>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > >> contribute
> > > >>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > >> revert
> > > >>>> by
> > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > >> 14:53,
> > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > >>> summarize
> > > >>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > >>> added a
> > > >>>>> very
> > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > >>>>> think it
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > >>> overweight
> > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > >>> 14:03,
> > > >>>>> Anton
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > >>> idea
> > > >>>>> to ask
> > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > >> not
> > > >>> an
> > > >>>>>>> author
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > >> community
> > > >>>>> member,
> > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > >> able
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> merge
> > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > >>>>>>>>>

[Dmitrii Ryabov]

Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> thank you for noticing.
>
> Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
>
>         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
>
> So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
>
> - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> correctly failing test.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
>
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text into
> > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> >
> > [2018-12-07
> >
> > 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to configured
> > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find
> > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> >     at
> >
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> >     at
> > org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend, and
> > then
> > > on
> > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > > >> constructive manner.
> > > Agree
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton.
> > > >
> > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > >
> > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > >
> > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > >
> > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all tests.
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > >
> > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because of
> > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > duplication
> > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside code he
> > > > merged.
> > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > unacceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > > objections.
> > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe the
> > > > > reasons for
> > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate why
> > > every
> > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > > evening,
> > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > reasons
> > > > for
> > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > needed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> > will
> > > > >> always
> > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we agree to
> > > add
> > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for existing of
> > > > this
> > > > >>> test,
> > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test, and how
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >>> checked?
> > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > ticket
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all tests
> > > with
> > > > >>> no-op
> > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> > final
> > > > >>> step.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class approach
> > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because it
> > > looks
> > > > >>>> like
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll create
> > > > >> ticket
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final step.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> > good
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive" ~100
> > > > >>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an opinion
> > > > >>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to improve
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It is
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > >>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > >>> approach
> > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > >> cheap
> > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in the
> > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > > >> all
> > > > >>>>> places
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > > >>> not
> > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > >>> require
> > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > >> are
> > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > >>> approach
> > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > >> cheap
> > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > >> away
> > > > >>> I
> > > > >>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler could
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > >>> happen
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > >>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the patch
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because I
> > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > >>>>> details
> > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > >> commit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > >>> something
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > >> Apache
> > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > >> we
> > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > >>> (only)
> > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > >> test
> > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > >>> no-op
> > > > >>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > >>> mutes
> > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > >>>> better
> > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > >>> More
> > > > >>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > >> provide
> > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > >> enabled
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > >>> have
> > > > >>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > >>>> class
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > >>> current
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > >> found
> > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > >>>>> related
> > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > >>> someone
> > > > >>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > >>>> those
> > > > >>>>> who
> > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > >> problem
> > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > >> found
> > > > >>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > >> care.
> > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > >>>> =
> > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > >> better
> > > > >>>> if
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > >> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > >>> when
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > >> caused
> > > > >>> by
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > >>> more
> > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > >>> revealed
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > >> anti
> > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > >> fix
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > >> further
> > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > >>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > >> case
> > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > >> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > >>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > >>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > >> TC
> > > > >>>>> report
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > >>> option.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > >> will
> > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>> do
> > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > >>> contributed
> > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > >> all?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > >>> me
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > >> handlers
> > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > >> approach
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > >>> first.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > >>> why
> > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > >>> before
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > >> rollback.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > >>> problem
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > >> PM
> > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > >> And I
> > > > >>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > > >>> "use
> > > > >>>>> no-op
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > > >>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > > >>> failures.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> revert
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > > >> A
> > > > >>>> lot
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > > >> everything
> > > > >>>>> I've
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > > >>> better,
> > > > >>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > > >> contribute
> > > > >>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > > >> revert
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > >> 14:53,
> > > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > > >>> summarize
> > > > >>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > > >>> added a
> > > > >>>>> very
> > > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > > >>>>> think it
> > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > > >>> overweight
> > > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > >>> 14:03,
> > > > >>>>> Anton
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > > >>> idea
> > > > >>>>> to ask
> > > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > > >> not
> > > > >>> an
> > > > >>>>>>> author
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > > >> community
> > > > >>>>> member,
> > > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > > >> able
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> merge
> > > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > > >>>>>>>>>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Dmitriy,

You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
Why it still not reverted?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > thank you for noticing.
> >
> > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> >
> >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> >
> > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
> >
> > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> > correctly failing test.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> >
> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a test
> > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
> into
> > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> > >
> > > [2018-12-07
> > >
> > >
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> configured
> > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
> find
> > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> > >     at
> > >
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> > >     at
> > >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend,
> and
> > > then
> > > > on
> > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive and
> > > > >> constructive manner.
> > > > Agree
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton.
> > > > >
> > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
> tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because
> of
> > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > > duplication
> > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
> code he
> > > > > merged.
> > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > > unacceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have some
> > > > > objections.
> > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> the
> > > > > > reasons for
> > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> if
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate
> why
> > > > every
> > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before Friday
> > > > > evening,
> > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > > reasons
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases if
> > > > needed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep investigation
> > > will
> > > > > >> always
> > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
> agree to
> > > > add
> > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
> existing of
> > > > > this
> > > > > >>> test,
> > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
> and how
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>> checked?
> > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research to
> > > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> create
> > > > ticket
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
> tests
> > > > with
> > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not the
> > > final
> > > > > >>> step.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
> approach
> > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because
> it
> > > > looks
> > > > > >>>> like
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> create
> > > > > >> ticket
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
> step.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it is
> > > good
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive"
> ~100
> > > > > >>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> opinion
> > > > > >>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
> improve
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> [hidden email]:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things. It
> is
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to find
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >>>>> places
> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I have
> > > > > >>> not
> > > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > > >>> require
> > > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > > >> away
> > > > > >>> I
> > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> could
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > > >>> happen
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to Ignite
> > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> patch
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what can
> > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2 because
> I
> > > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or minor
> > > > > >>>>> details
> > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > > >>> something
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > > >> Apache
> > > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > > >>> (only)
> > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > > >> test
> > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > > >>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > > >>> mutes
> > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > > >>> More
> > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > > >> provide
> > > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > > >> enabled
> > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > > >>> have
> > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > > >>>> class
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > > >>> current
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > > >>>>> related
> > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > > >>> someone
> > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > > >>>> those
> > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > > >> problem
> > > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > > >> care.
> > > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > > >>>> =
> > > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > > >> better
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > > >>> when
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > > >> caused
> > > > > >>> by
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > > >>> more
> > > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > > >>> revealed
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > > >> anti
> > > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > > >> fix
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > > >> further
> > > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > > >>>>> time
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > > >> case
> > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > > >> code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > > >> TC
> > > > > >>>>> report
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > > >>> option.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > > >>> contributed
> > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > > >> all?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > > >>> me
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > > >> handlers
> > > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > > >> approach
> > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > > >>> first.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > > >>> why
> > > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > > >>> before
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > > >> rollback.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > >>> problem
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > > >> PM
> > > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > > >> And I
> > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "massive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op handler restore" to
> > > > > >>> "use
> > > > > >>>>> no-op
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 15:09,
> > > > > >>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Pavlov
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov explained
> > > > > >>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests do test
> > > > > >>> failures.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, there is no reason
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> revert
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> other's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to do things better.
> > > > > >> A
> > > > > >>>> lot
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>> people
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we revert
> > > > > >> everything
> > > > > >>>>> I've
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributed? I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can do things
> > > > > >>> better,
> > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy if you
> > > > > >> contribute
> > > > > >>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> improvements
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to
> > > > > >> revert
> > > > > >>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>> veto,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would discuss it with all
> > > > > >>>>>>> community,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> please feel
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > >> 14:53,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Иван <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please
> > > > > >>> summarize
> > > > > >>>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see, the patch
> > > > > >>> added a
> > > > > >>>>> very
> > > > > >>>>>>>> good
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler in tests. And I
> > > > > >>>>> think it
> > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> really
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm and does it
> > > > > >>> overweight
> > > > > >>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> result? And
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в
> > > > > >>> 14:03,
> > > > > >>>>> Anton
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an incorrect
> > > > > >>> idea
> > > > > >>>>> to ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>> me to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly since I'm
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>> author
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewer.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I, as a
> > > > > >> community
> > > > > >>>>> member,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you're not
> > > > > >> able
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not acceptable
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> merge
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unknown
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Anton, I was expecting that you revert, because you wanted to do it.

Provided that I agree that fix could be reverted because of both functional
and style possible improvements, does not mean I believe it is the only
option and it should be reverted.

Even if I agree to revert doesn't mean all community agrees, so reverting
just 1 minute after writing to dev list would be strange. I believe we
should be courteous enough to give a couple of days for people to come and
give feedback.

So if you have a spare minute, please go ahead. If not, I can do it later.

пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 14:23, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> You confirmed that fix should be reverted and reworked last Friday.
> Why it still not reverted?
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:46 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree, it is reasonable to revert.
> > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:44, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Hi Ilya,
> > >
> > > thank you for noticing.
> > >
> > > Calling to fail is equal to re-throw,
> > >
> > >         throw new AssertionFailedError(message);
> > >
> > > So, yes, for now it is absolutely valid reason to revert and rework fix
> > >
> > > - as Nikolay suggested to reduce method override ocurrences.
> > > - and with transferring this exception into GridAbstractTest and
> > > correctly failing test.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > >
> > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 18:38, Ilya Lantukh <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately, this FailureHandler doesn't seem to work. I wrote a
> test
> > > > that reproduces a bug and should fail. It prints the following text
> > into
> > > > log, but the test still passes "successfully":
> > > >
> > > > [2018-12-07
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> 18:28:23,800][ERROR][sys-stripe-1-#345%recovery.GridPointInTimeRecoveryCacheNoAffinityExchangeTest1%][IgniteTestResources]
> > > > Critical system error detected. Will be handled accordingly to
> > configured
> > > > handler [hnd=TestFailingFailureHandler [], failureCtx=FailureContext
> > > > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to
> > find
> > > > consistentId by UUID [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]]]
> > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find consistentId by UUID
> > > > [nodeId=80dd2ec6-1913-4a5c-a839-630315c00003,
> > > > topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=12, minorTopVer=0]]
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactId(ConsistentIdMapper.java:62)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.discovery.ConsistentIdMapper.mapToCompactIds(ConsistentIdMapper.java:123)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.newTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2507)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxManager.logTxRecord(IgniteTxManager.java:2483)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1226)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxAdapter.state(IgniteTxAdapter.java:1054)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.startRemoteTx(IgniteTxHandler.java:1836)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.processDhtTxPrepareRequest(IgniteTxHandler.java:1180)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler.access$400(IgniteTxHandler.java:118)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:222)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.transactions.IgniteTxHandler$5.apply(IgniteTxHandler.java:220)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.processMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:1059)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.onMessage0(GridCacheIoManager.java:584)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:383)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.handleMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:309)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager.access$100(GridCacheIoManager.java:100)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheIoManager$1.onMessage(GridCacheIoManager.java:299)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1568)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1196)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:127)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1092)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.body(StripedExecutor.java:505)
> > > >     at
> > > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(GridWorker.java:120)
> > > >     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> We stop, for now, then you will chill a
> > > > > >> little bit, then you will have an absolutely fantastic weekend,
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> Monday, Dec 10 we will continue this discussion in a positive
> and
> > > > > >> constructive manner.
> > > > > Agree
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:55 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I discussed this fix privately with Dmitriy Pavlov.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. We had NoOpHandler for ALL tests before this merge.
> > > > > > 2. Dmitry Ryabov will remove all copypasted code soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, this fix make things better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we shouldn't revert it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should continue work to turn off NoOpHandler in all
> > tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov, can you do it, as a committer of this patch?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/6/18 3:02 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research
> to
> > > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > Just want to remind you that we already spend time here because
> > of
> > > > > > > unacceptable code merge situation.
> > > > > > > Such merges should NEVER happen again.
> > > > > > > Please, next time make sure that code you merge has no massive
> > > > > > duplication
> > > > > > > and fixes without proper reason investigation.
> > > > > > > Committer always MUST be ready to explain each symbol inside
> > code he
> > > > > > merged.
> > > > > > > The situation when you have no clue why it written this way
> > > > > unacceptable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Feel free to start a discussion at private in case you have
> some
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > But, hope you agree and will help us to solve the issue
> instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >>> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to
> describe
> > the
> > > > > > > reasons for
> > > > > > >>> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> > if
> > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case no-one will be ready to start a proper fix (investigate
> > why
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > no-op required and create tickets for each problem) before
> Friday
> > > > > > evening,
> > > > > > > the code will be rolled back.
> > > > > > > Simple no-op is better that same but overcomplicated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Anton, I mean `copy-paste reduce` ticket. I'll try to describe
> > > > reasons
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> no-op in tests. Then, we can create tickets to fix this cases
> if
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 13:53 Dmitriy Pavlov [hidden email]:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> BTW, No-Op or StopNode-FailTest in case of a deep
> investigation
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> always
> > > > > > >>> require to understand what test does and what it tests.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So we can get a positive outcome from this research if we
> > agree to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > >>> - a small description to each test about the reason for
> > existing of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >>> test,
> > > > > > >>> - what is the expected behavior of the product in the test,
> > and how
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >>> checked?
> > > > > > >>> - failure handler influence, etc.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I still hope Anton will do the first bunch of tests research
> to
> > > > > > >> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>> the idea.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:39, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> > create
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > > >>>> Do you mean 'copy-paste reduce' ticket or check/fix of all
> > tests
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>> to have a proper handler?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Just want to make sure that copy-paste minimization is not
> the
> > > > final
> > > > > > >>> step.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii Ryabov,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Your comments sounds reasonable to me. Marker base class
> > approach
> > > > > > >>>>> looks good to me so far.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> P.S. I had even worse name in mind 'StopGaps' =)
> > > > > > >>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:08, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ivan, I think `Workarounds` class isn't good idea, because
> > it
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > >>>> like
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>> create stable workarounds, which will never be fixed.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I agree with Nikolay's solution. If no one minds, I'll
> > create
> > > > > > >> ticket
> > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>> appropriate changes and recheck issues.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 12:17 Anton Vinogradov [hidden email]:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folks, thank's everyone for solution research.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm ok with Nikolay approach in case that's not a final
> > step.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I meant "not expensive" by "cheap". And I meant that it
> is
> > > > good
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it cheap =). And I said it to contrast with "expensive"
> > ~100
> > > > > > >>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> investigation. And if we agree (mostly I would like an
> > opinion
> > > > > > >>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov as an original author) on a way how to
> > improve
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patch then let's do it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:41, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, Dmitriy Pavlov, sorry.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Of course it should be "NOT to blame author".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, one more time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г., 10:40 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you've misprinted here
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can blame code but never coders.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please see https://discourse.pi-hole.net/faq - has
> > > > > > >>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> common with Apache Guides, but says the same things.
> It
> > is
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> practical
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> necessity to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 10:31, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I support this idea.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we create the tickets already?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your term "cheap".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think reducing copy paste code not worth it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I see a hundreds issues that bring copypasted code in
> > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> product(Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and others).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I insist, that we shouldn't accept patches with it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm here to blame the author.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to improve this patch and make it easier to
> find
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >>>>> places
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> NoOp handler to do the further investigation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 06/12/2018 в 10:19 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked what harm will applying the patch bring I
> have
> > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > >>>>> got a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct answer. But I think I got some pain points:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Anton does not like that reasons why ~100 tests
> > > > > > >>> require
> > > > > > >>>>> noop
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> handler are not clear. And might be several problems
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >>>>> covered
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Nikolay suggests some code improvements.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay's patch [1] suggests a slightly different
> > > > > > >>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> how to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. And implementing that idea looks like a
> > > > > > >> cheap
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But the idea of course could be discussed. Straight
> > > > > > >> away
> > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> another slightly different trick [2].
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Investigating why ~100 tests require noop handler
> > could
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>> costly.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction I see following options which can
> > > > > > >>> happen
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Accept the patch and bring an improvement to
> Ignite
> > > > > > >>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket for further investigation).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Revert the patch and loose an improvement.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One might say that there is an option "Revert the
> > patch
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better" but I does not see anything (anyone) what
> can
> > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I personally prefer an option 1 against 2
> because
> > I
> > > > > > >>>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is good if the system "can make a progress".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5586/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of test
> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By this commit, we had unmuted (possible) failures
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, and we’re still concerned about style or
> minor
> > > > > > >>>>> details
> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted, aren’t we?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain this idea a bit more?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what is unmuted by discussed
> > > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:40, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can prepare a full patch for NoOp handler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton Vinogradov, do you agree with this approach?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 20:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, as an improvement to the code, this may
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> still, it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reason to revert. And Anton mentioned
> > > > > > >>> something
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling/logging. Probably we will see an
> > > > > > >>>>> implementation as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case here is a big thing related to The
> > > > > > >> Apache
> > > > > > >>>>> Way, -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it makes me switched into fight-mode - until
> > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > >>>>> stop
> > > > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMCs (at least) are aware of patterns and
> > > > > > >>>>> anti-patterns in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will succeed as a project much more as with
> > > > > > >>> (only)
> > > > > > >>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest analog to Noop handler is mute of
> > > > > > >> test
> > > > > > >>>>> failure.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> By
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had unmuted (possible) failures in
> > > > > > >>>>> ~50000-~100=~49900
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we’re
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still concerned about style or minor details if
> > > > > > >>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> copy-pasted,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren’t we?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone arguing about the number of tests we
> > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>> allowed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op: please visit this page
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&tab=mutedProblems&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=__all_branches__
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: Muted tests: 3154. Are there any
> > > > > > >>>> disagreements
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> here? Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no insistent disagreement/not happy PMCs with
> > > > > > >>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unconditionally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muted failures?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason now to continue the discussion about
> > > > > > >>>>> reverting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive contribution into product stability from
> > > > > > >>>>> Dmitrii
> > > > > > >>>>>>> R.?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Dmitrii Ryabov is trying to solve odd
> > > > > > >>> mutes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem, as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> well, to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate mutes with links resolved issues in the TC
> > > > > > >>>> Bot.
> > > > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserved to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read denouncing comments about the contribution?
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >>>>> guess,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> no,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> especially
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenter is not going to help/contribute a
> > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>> fix.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now a paramount thing for me if people in
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> join
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process or not. People may be not happy with some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decisions/code/style,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are more often unhappy than others.
> > > > > > >>> More
> > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute,- more
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can decide. If you don't contribute at all -
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care too
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about just opinions, I can accept facts. To
> > > > > > >> provide
> > > > > > >>>>> facts
> > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep research, how can someone know if the test
> > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without deep analysis?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if someone comes to list and provide just
> > > > > > >>>>> negative
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, people
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop writing here. Probably no-op was
> > > > > > >> enabled
> > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion because of this, someone may be afraid
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> sharing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Result:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us knew it only now.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you need to make Ignite quite toxic place to
> > > > > > >>> have
> > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code with just a few of arguing-resistant
> > > > > > >>>>> contributors? I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not, and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't need to be reminded 'community first
> > > > > > >>>>> principle'.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 19:43, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid copy paste code instead
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> thinking
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Apache
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way all the time :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I propose to return to the code!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should use some kind of marker base
> > > > > > >>>> class
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoOpHandler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has several advantages, comparing with
> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. No copy paste code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Reduce changes.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. All usages of NoOpHandler can be easily
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >>>>> with IDE
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> grep
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared proof of concept pull request to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> my
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go further and prepare full fix.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5584/files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:29, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, let me explain one thing which is not
> > > > > > >>>>> related
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> much to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is more about how we interact. If
> > > > > > >>> someone
> > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> come to the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say it is not good commit, it is a silly
> > > > > > >>>>> solution
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and say
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework these patches - it is a road to
> > > > > > >> nowhere.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone sees the potential to make things
> > > > > > >>>>> better he
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or she
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or commits patch). This is named do-ocracy,
> > > > > > >>>> those
> > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> do can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this topic it is a perfect example of how
> > > > > > >>>>> do-ocracy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) work. We have a potentially hidden
> > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > >>>>> (we had
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R. commit), I believe 3 or 7 tests may be
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> re-checks of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, these tests will get their
> > > > > > >>> stop-node
> > > > > > >>>>>>> handler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op test list.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have ~100 tests and several people who
> > > > > > >> care.
> > > > > > >>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitrii &
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, Nikolay, probably Ed, and we have
> > > > > > >>> 100/6
> > > > > > >>>> =
> > > > > > >>>>> 18
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> double
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each contributor. We can make things
> > > > > > >> better
> > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>> go
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> together. And
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how a community works.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone just come to list to criticize and
> > > > > > >>>>> enforces
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> else
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all things, he or she probably don't want to
> > > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code but
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other goals.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 18:08, Andrey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I can see from the above discussion,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Tests in these classes check fail cases
> > > > > > >>> when
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> critical
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like node stop or exception thrown
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this copy-n-paste-style change is
> > > > > > >> caused
> > > > > > >>> by
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imperfect logic
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing tests, that should be reworked in
> > > > > > >>> more
> > > > > > >>>>>>> robust
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> way,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom failure handlers. Dmitrii just
> > > > > > >>> revealed
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flaws,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:54, Nikolay
> > > > > > >> Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agree with Anton Vinogradov.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid commits like [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copy paste coding style is well known
> > > > > > >> anti
> > > > > > >>>>> pattern.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we have another option to do same
> > > > > > >> fix
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> styling?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepting such patches leads to the
> > > > > > >> further
> > > > > > >>>>> tickets
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches brings to the code base.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example of cleanup [2]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's take a significant amount of my and
> > > > > > >>>> Maxim
> > > > > > >>>>> time
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> made and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup patch.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't accept patch with copy paste
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "improvements".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really like your perfectionism
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about perfectionism it's about
> > > > > > >>>> keeping
> > > > > > >>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> base
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clean.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm going to rollback changes in
> > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > >>>>>>> arguments
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to rollback and rework this commit.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, we should reduce copy paste
> > > > > > >> code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/b94a3c2fe3a272a31fad62b80505d16f87eab2dd
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/eb8038f65285559c5424eba2882b0de0583ea7af
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г. в 17:28, Anton
> > > > > > >>> Vinogradov
> > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should we make all things
> > > > > > >>>> perfect
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a single fix?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I'm ok in case someone ready
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> continue :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we should avoid such
> > > > > > >>> over-copy-pasted
> > > > > > >>>>>>> commits
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:13 PM Andrey
> > > > > > >>>>> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have TC run results for the PR
> > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> massive
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallbacks were added?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's create a ticket to investigate
> > > > > > >>>>>>> possibility
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> using any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure handler for such tests with
> > > > > > >> TC
> > > > > > >>>>> report
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM Anton
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Vinogradov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok in case someone ready to do
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>> (get
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it's a better choice).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit confirmation required.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, only rollback is an
> > > > > > >>> option.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton, if you care enough here
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >>>>> you try
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> research a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests? Or you are asking others
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>> things
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like idea from Andrew to create
> > > > > > >>>>> ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving towards 0....10 tests with
> > > > > > >>>>> noop. It
> > > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> easy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden method now.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So threat this change as
> > > > > > >>> contributed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 15:59 Anton
> > > > > > >>>>> Vinogradov
> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > > >>>>> problem in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for
> > > > > > >> all?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several (less than 10) is ok to
> > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail and why no-op is a better
> > > > > > >>>>> choice.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100+++ copy-pasted no-op
> > > > > > >> handlers
> > > > > > >>>>> are not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ok!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't ask you to re-do
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >>>>> change,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I ask
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach for tests which
> > > > > > >>>>>>> intentionally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> activate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asking me to provide
> > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without no-op handler?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach is to rollback this
> > > > > > >>>> fix,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reopen the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make a proper investigation
> > > > > > >>> first.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, let's stop this game.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to discuss the reasons
> > > > > > >>> why
> > > > > > >>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fail.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case no-one checked "why"
> > > > > > >>> before
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> fix was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start doing this after
> > > > > > >> rollback.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM
> > > > > > >>>> Eduard
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shangareev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get. What is the
> > > > > > >>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> saving
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No-Op for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we keep No-Op for all?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:20
> > > > > > >> PM
> > > > > > >>>>> Павлухин
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Иван
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant that patch.
> > > > > > >> And I
> > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respell
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>