KAFKA-4345: Run decktape test for each pull request

[raghavgautam]

As of now the ducktape tests that we have for kafka are not run for pull request. We can run these test using travis-ci. Here is a sample run:
https://travis-ci.org/raghavgautam/kafka/builds/170574293

[raghavgautam]

Requesting @harshach to review.

[harshach]

Thanks @raghavgautam . I'll go over it.

[harshach]

if we are using released binaries it means we are not running against the PR right. Shouldn't we merge the PR and build Kafka distro out of it and then run tests?

[raghavgautam]

We build and copy the new binary to /opt/kafka-trunk and test that. We need released binaries for compatibility tests.

[harshach]

@raghavgautam does all of the tests pass and do we need to ask for any infra changes for this to run?

[raghavgautam]

@harshach
We can run these tests in two way, locally on the laptop and on travis-ci.

• On my laptop I was able to get 138 out of 149 to pass
• On travis-ci I was able to run only 124 tests(timeout issues) out of these 88 passed. The failures seem to be timing related.
  https://travis-ci.org/raghavgautam/kafka/builds/171502069

For the enabling travis-ci, we need community consensus and I will start a discussion for this.

[raghavgautam]

I have disabled failing splits.
https://travis-ci.org/raghavgautam/kafka/builds/174369515

[harshach]

+1.

[harshach]

@raghavgautam can you upmerge this patch. I'll merge it in today.

[raghavgautam]

@harshach I have rebased my pull request

[harshach]

Thanks @raghavgautam . Merged into trunk. Did you open a infra ticket for this.

[ijuma]

I think it's great to be able to run the system tests in Travis. However, I don't understand why we added the gradle wrapper? It's the wrong version (we are using Gradle 3.2) and it was an intentional decision to remove it some time ago. Also, the system test renames are a bit arbitrary and they make it harder to use in the normal case, which is a point that Ewen had raised in the mailing list discussion.

[ijuma]

Cc @ewencp

[ewencp]

tests/cluster_file.json should also probably be under tests/travis/ since it is highly specific to that configuration. It'd also generally be a good idea to run a test using the existing implementation when there's this much movement under these tests to make sure everything still works (and that there are the expected number of tests -- one of the easiest things to break when moving things around is that some things get lost in directories without proper __init__.py files and become unimportable).

[ewencp]

Also, trunk doesn't build since we're missing various licenses in files that don't pass the rat check...

:rat
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.properties
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/client1/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/core1/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/mirror_maker/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/replication/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/security1/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/security2/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/kafkatest/tests/upgrade/__init__.py
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/travis/ssh/id_rsa
Unknown license: /Users/ewencp/kafka.git/tests/travis/ssh/id_rsa.pub

[raghavgautam]

@ewencp I will open a pull request for the rat issue asap and will open jira's for rest of the issues.

[ewencp]

@raghavgautam Sorry, should have posted here, I filed #2172 already, which also removes the gradle wrapper and gets things setup in Travis via the travis.yml. See discussion there about whether we want to incrementally sort this out or just back out the change and re-file the PR so we can work on it until we've addressed the concerns previously mentioned.

[raghavgautam]

@ewencp I too filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4448 and started working on it.

[ewencp]

@harshach Thoughts on reverting this given some of the issues raised vs trying to clean things up with follow up commits?