[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14750?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17182668#comment-17182668
 ] 

Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-14750:
---------------------------------------

[~noble.paul] TestPackages.testSchemaPlugins is still @Ignored, is that 
intentional?

> Harden TestBulkSchemaConcurrent
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-14750
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14750
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Tests
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>            Assignee: Noble Paul
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 8.7
>
>         Attachments: SOLR-14750.patch
>
>          Time Spent: 1h 20m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> This test has been failing quite often lately. I poked around a bit and see 
> what I _think_ is evidence of a race condition in CoreContainer.reload where 
> a reload on the same core is happening from two places in close succession. 
> I'll attach a preliminary patch soon.
> Without this patch I had 25 failures out of 1,000 runs, with it 0.
> I consider this patch a WIP, putting up for comment. Well, it has nocommits 
> so... But In particular, I have to review some changes I made about which 
> name we're using for PendingCoreOps. I also want to back out my changes and 
> beast it again with some more logging to see if I can nail down that multiple 
> reloads are happening before declaring victory.
> What this does is put the name of the core we're reloading in pendingCoreOps 
> earlier in the reload process. Then the second call to reload will wait until 
> the first is completed. I also restructured it a bit because I don't like if 
> clauses that go on forever and a small else clause way down the code. I 
> inverted the test and bailed out of the method rather than fall off the end 
> after the else clause.
> One thing I don't like about this is two reloads in such rapid succession 
> seems wasteful. Even so, I can imagine that one reload gets through far 
> enough to load the schema, then a schema update changes the schema _then_ 
> calls reload. So I don't think just returning if there's a reload happening 
> on that core already is valid.
> More to come.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to