Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-13595][connector/kafka][test] Close the KafkaAdminClient with ... #10724

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

becketqin
Copy link
Contributor

@becketqin becketqin commented Dec 30, 2019

…a timeout. Print stacktrace if a long closure happens.

What is the purpose of the change

Fix the test failure caused by long closing time of the the KafkaAdminClient.

Brief change log

Use the close(Duration) method in KafkaAdminClient with a timeout. It looks that this does not guarantee the timeout will be honored due to the bug in KafkaAdminClient. Therefore we also print the stacktrace of the dangling KafkaAdminClient thread in case this happens again.

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests that delete Kafka topics.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

…a timeout. Print stacktrace if a long closure happens.
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 8eaf5ae (Mon Dec 30 14:32:23 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Dec 30, 2019

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

Copy link
Member

@carp84 carp84 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1, changes LGTM.

tryDelete(adminClient, topic);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
fail(String.format("Delete test topic : %s failed, %s", topic, e.getMessage()));
} finally {
adminClient.close(Duration.ofMillis(30000L));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is way too long. If our stance is that the shutdown is not relevant for correctness then let's set this to a low value (5 seconds max).

Also add a comment that we don't use a try-with-resources so that we can introduce a timeout.

@@ -201,4 +202,15 @@ protected NetworkFailuresProxy createProxy(String remoteHost, int remotePort) {
networkFailuresProxies.add(proxy);
return proxy;
}

protected void maybePrintDanglingThreadStacktrace(String threadNameKeyword) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm wondering about the benefit. What do we gain by knowing where the KafkaAdminClient is blocking?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This helps to identify where exactly internal thread of KafkaAdminClient blocks. So we can address the root cause of the long closure, though it may be in Kafka instead of Flink.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems unlikely to ever be something in Flink though? I wouldn't want people start chasing Kafka bugs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think our goal is to make our tests stable, regardless of whether the bug is in Kafka or not. Adding this log is not only for debugging Kafka.

A dangling thread may not necessarily indicate a bug in Kafka. We don't know yet. For example, the blocking could be caused by our test environment setting, e.g. forget to unblock the broker traffic in some case.

Even if it is a bug in Kafka, it is better to know what exactly the bug is so we know the consequence of it. For example, in this case a topic may not be deleted, which may have impact in other tests.

@zentol zentol self-assigned this Jan 3, 2020
@carp84
Copy link
Member

carp84 commented Jan 7, 2020

Checked and confirmed the travis failure of 163dc9a is caused by a known issue as tracked by FLINK-15247 and irrelative to changes here.

@becketqin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @carp84 .

@zentol I've updated the patch. Any further comments?

@zentol zentol removed their assignment Jan 9, 2020
@becketqin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged.
master: fff0952
release-1.10: bf0f968

@becketqin becketqin closed this Jan 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants