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

TEZ-4363: Bump protobuf dependency to 3.x #192

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 22, 2022

Conversation

mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/2/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/3/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@@ -90,7 +91,7 @@ public void toProtoStream(CodedOutputStream outputStream) throws IOException {

@Override
public void fromProtoStream(CodedInputStream inputStream) throws IOException {
AMLaunchedProto proto = inputStream.readMessage(AMLaunchedProto.PARSER, null);
AMLaunchedProto proto = inputStream.readMessage(AMLaunchedProto.parser(), ExtensionRegistry.newInstance());
Copy link
Contributor

@abstractdog abstractdog Mar 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. is this PARSER -> parser() change backward compatible?
  2. what is ExtensionRegistry.newInstance() about exactly?

in general, I want to avoid every direct change in the first place which makes tez unable to compile on 2.5

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mark-bathori mark-bathori Mar 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. The PARSER field is deprecated in version 3 but replacing it with parser() is breaking backward compatibility so this needs to be reverted.
  2. Protobuf3 introduced a nullcheck on the extensionRegistry parameter so if it gets null value then it will throw a NullpointerException, that’s why I replaced it with ExtensionRegistry.newInstance() which is creating an empty instance (after checking this getEmptyRegistry() would be better since it is creating empty maps for the new instance)
    I checked the generated code both on Protobuf2 and Protobuf3 but it seems that extensionRegistry param is not used in our inputStream.readMessage use case.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks @mbathori-cloudera, I think now we can move on with PARSER (even if it's deprecated), as we haven't decided about a major tez release yet, so backward compatibility now looks more important to me

@guptanikhil007
Copy link
Contributor

@mbathori-cloudera @abstractdog
Can we prioritize this PR? There is known security issue with protobuf 2.5.0.

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

by default, I wanted to merge the benchmark ticket first (TEZ-4362), but considering that the world is moving towards protobuf 3, I believe it's fine to merge this patch first and then do the perf benchmark later
@mbathori-cloudera, could you please rebase the patch on master and let us now if you need any assistance with this PR?

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/5/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

mark-bathori commented May 2, 2022

@abstractdog I would need some help with the Yetus build. I’ve changed the PROTOBUF_VERSION variable in the install-protobuf.sh but in the build it is still getting “2.5.0” as value. In local build it's working correctly.
Could you help with this?

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

@mbathori-cloudera, I was able to reproduce, maybe this is related to TEZ-4300, not sure at the moment
try to build from a sub dir, similarly to precommit, I did below:

rm -rf build-tools/protobuf #this is needed
cd tez-dag
mvn clean test-compile -DskipTests=true

I believe the issue might be related to the automatically downloaded protobuf (under build-tools/protobuf), I'm suspecting that if you build from a folder of a submodule, it's not downloaded automatically before building and still has only 2.5.0 present, hence the failure:

protoc version is 'libprotoc 2.5.0', expected version is '3.19.4'

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

mark-bathori commented May 9, 2022

@abstractdog thanks I could reproduce the issue with trying to compile only the submodule. It seems like the protobuf download script is not triggered from the submodules and the compile-protoc will fail. If I add the install-protobuf.sh plugin execution to the submodule it will execute successfully but it doesn't seems to be the proper solution to add it to every submodule's pom file.

@amanraj2520
Copy link
Contributor

@mbathori-cloudera Any updates on this PR. Can we prioritize this fix.

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

hey all! I forgot to review @mbathori-cloudera 's last comment so regarding:

it doesn't seem to be the proper solution to add it to every submodule's pom file.

I don't mind if we have to add this to every submodule if it works only this way, as we want to be able to build submodules alone in their subfolders too
it doesn't have to touch all submodules, only the ones with proto files:

find . -name "*.proto" | awk -F'/' '{ print $2}' | uniq

tez-plugins
tez-runtime-library
tez-api
tez-ext-service-tests
tez-runtime-internals
tez-mapreduce
tez-dag

also, I'm wondering if it's enough to define the plugin only once in root pom.xml's pluginManagement and re-declare only "some parts" of it in submodules (so exploit maven's ability to inherit plugins)

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/6/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abstractdog I’ve added the protobuf install plugin to the required submodules and now they can be built independently on localhost however the PR build is still getting PROTOBUF_VERSION=2.5.0 somehow. The Dockerfile is installing a fix version of protobuf defined there so I'm not really sure if we need to run install-protobuf.sh in this case.

Another issue seems to be that wget is missing from the environment wget: command not found.

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

okay, so we have different problems, let me think about the stuck 2.5.0 version
in the meantime, do you have the bandwidth to create new jira for adding wget to the image used in precommit?

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure I'm creating a ticket for the wget issue.

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

I think I found the problem
precommit compiles master branch without the patch first, but the yetus image is already built with protobuf 3.x image according to the patch
we cannot make this work easily, the only thing we can do is:

  1. confirm all tests and checks passed for this patch
    1a) unit tests look good: https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/6/testReport/
    1b) there are checkstyle issues, please fix them: https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/6/artifact/out/diff-checkstyle-root.txt

  2. merge this change yo master

  3. create a followup PR to ensure correctness, and handle issues if any

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/7/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

thanks @abstractdog for checking it, I've updated the checkstyle issues and as I can see the wget patch was merged so now this issue seems to be fixed based on the logs however another problem occured:
/home/jenkins/jenkins-home/workspace/tez-multibranch_PR-192/src/tez-api/../build-tools/install-protobuf.sh: line 42: sudo: command not found

Should I make a ticket and PR for this missing sudo command?

@slachiewicz
Copy link
Member

would it be possible to use latest 3.21.1 version? it contains artefact for Mac M1 aarm64

we are doing similar upgrade in HIVE apache/hive#3309

and to compile .proto with maven we use https://github.com/os72/protoc-jar-maven-plugin (ie no need to have .sh to download protoc)

<plugin>
        <groupId>com.github.os72</groupId>
        <artifactId>protoc-jar-maven-plugin</artifactId>
        <version>3.11.4</version>
        <executions>
          <execution>
            <phase>generate-sources</phase>
            <goals>
              <goal>run</goal>
            </goals>
            <configuration>
              <protocArtifact>com.google.protobuf:protoc:${protobuf.version}</protocArtifact>

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

thanks @abstractdog for checking it, I've updated the checkstyle issues and as I can see the wget patch was merged so now this issue seems to be fixed based on the logs however another problem occured: /home/jenkins/jenkins-home/workspace/tez-multibranch_PR-192/src/tez-api/../build-tools/install-protobuf.sh: line 42: sudo: command not found

Should I make a ticket and PR for this missing sudo command?

yes, please
can you reproduce this locally for sudo to check further problems?
I believe when you build the docker image, you can test it locally by something like:

docker run -v $HOME:$HOME -w `pwd` -e "HOME=$HOME" "asdfouwergwerg_new_image_hash_here_23045828345" /bin/bash -c "mvn clean install -s $HOME/.m2/settings.xml -DskipTests"

here, you might try to attach your tez folder to docker's home I guess

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

would it be possible to use latest 3.21.1 version? it contains artefact for Mac M1 aarm64

we are doing similar upgrade in HIVE apache/hive#3309

and to compile .proto with maven we use https://github.com/os72/protoc-jar-maven-plugin (ie no need to have .sh to download protoc)

<plugin>
        <groupId>com.github.os72</groupId>
        <artifactId>protoc-jar-maven-plugin</artifactId>
        <version>3.11.4</version>
        <executions>
          <execution>
            <phase>generate-sources</phase>
            <goals>
              <goal>run</goal>
            </goals>
            <configuration>
              <protocArtifact>com.google.protobuf:protoc:${protobuf.version}</protocArtifact>

yes, thanks @slachiewicz, 3.21.1 makes sense, let's do it in this PR (cc: @mbathori-cloudera)

regarding protoc-jar-maven-plugin, currently we use this for building protos:

tez/tez-api/pom.xml

Lines 170 to 198 in 24a77c9

<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId>
<artifactId>hadoop-maven-plugins</artifactId>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>compile-protoc</id>
<phase>generate-sources</phase>
<goals>
<goal>protoc</goal>
</goals>
<configuration>
<protocVersion>${protobuf.version}</protocVersion>
<protocCommand>${protoc.path}</protocCommand>
<imports>
<param>${basedir}/src/main/proto</param>
</imports>
<source>
<directory>${basedir}/src/main/proto</directory>
<includes>
<include>DAGApiRecords.proto</include>
<include>DAGClientAMProtocol.proto</include>
<include>Events.proto</include>
</includes>
</source>
<output>${project.build.directory}/generated-sources/java</output>
</configuration>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>

I guess we can move to protoc-jar-maven-plugin

the .sh for downloading protoc is different than generating the sources I think

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abstractdog I've built and tested locally the docker image and I've managed to run the protobuf install script after adding sudo, so it seems like it was the last missing command. I've made a ticket and a PR for this change: TEZ-4421

I also bumped the protobuf version to 3.21.1 which needed some further fixing in the install script since they removed the major version number from the file names e.g:

https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/download/v21.1/protoc-21.1-linux-x86_64.zip
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/download/v3.19.4/protoc-3.19.4-linux-x86_64.zip

I'll update this PR after TEZ-4421 gets merged.

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/8/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/9/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abstractdog I replaced the protobuf install and compile plugin with protoc-jar-maven-plugin as slachiewicz recommended it. It handles the plugin download and compilation so I think we can get rid of the install-protobuf.sh script. It also supports version 2.5.0 so we can keep the backward compatibility. I’ve run a couple of test build locally for different versions and they worked properly.
Unfortunately the PR build won't succeed on this either, since it still use the master branch for compilation without the PR changes.
What do you think about this change?

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

protoc-jar-maven-plugin absolutely makes sense to me, however I would like to see it in a different PR, as it's not related to protobuf 3.x upgrade, could you please take care of it @mbathori-cloudera?

@mark-bathori
Copy link
Contributor Author

mark-bathori commented Jun 8, 2022

@abstractdog I've created a ticket for the protobuf plugin change (TEZ-4428) and a pull request for it: #218

@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

@mbathori-cloudera: could you update this PR with the latest patch? please squash commits together for easier reference, thanks!

@tez-yetus
Copy link

(!) A patch to the testing environment has been detected.
Re-executing against the patched versions to perform further tests.
The console is at https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/console in case of problems.

@tez-yetus
Copy link

💔 -1 overall

Vote Subsystem Runtime Comment
+0 🆗 reexec 36m 45s Docker mode activated.
_ Prechecks _
+1 💚 dupname 0m 1s No case conflicting files found.
+0 🆗 shelldocs 0m 1s Shelldocs was not available.
+1 💚 @author 0m 0s The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-1 ❌ test4tests 0m 0s The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
_ master Compile Tests _
+0 🆗 mvndep 7m 2s Maven dependency ordering for branch
-1 ❌ mvninstall 5m 58s root in master failed.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 47s tez-dag in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 37s tez-protobuf-history-plugin in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 41s root in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 39s tez-dag in master failed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 33s tez-protobuf-history-plugin in master failed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.
-1 ❌ compile 0m 36s root in master failed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.
-0 ⚠️ checkstyle 0m 57s The patch fails to run checkstyle in root
-1 ❌ javadoc 0m 45s tez-dag in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ javadoc 0m 32s tez-protobuf-history-plugin in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ javadoc 0m 37s root in master failed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.
-1 ❌ javadoc 1m 34s root in master failed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.
+0 🆗 spotbugs 7m 5s Used deprecated FindBugs config; considering switching to SpotBugs.
-1 ❌ findbugs 0m 41s tez-dag in master failed.
-1 ❌ findbugs 0m 35s tez-protobuf-history-plugin in master failed.
-1 ❌ findbugs 1m 6s root in master failed.
-0 ⚠️ patch 7m 30s Used diff version of patch file. Binary files and potentially other changes not applied. Please rebase and squash commits if necessary.
_ Patch Compile Tests _
+0 🆗 mvndep 0m 19s Maven dependency ordering for patch
+1 💚 mvninstall 6m 32s the patch passed
+1 💚 compile 4m 4s the patch passed with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1
+1 💚 javac 0m 52s tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 0 total (was 200)
+1 💚 javac 0m 39s tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 0 total (was 200)
-1 ❌ javac 2m 33s root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 4 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 4 total (was 200)
+1 💚 compile 3m 39s the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07
+1 💚 javac 0m 47s tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 0 total (was 200)
+1 💚 javac 0m 37s tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 0 total (was 200)
-1 ❌ javac 2m 15s root-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 4 new + 0 unchanged - 200 fixed = 4 total (was 200)
+1 💚 checkstyle 2m 9s the patch passed
+1 💚 hadolint 0m 3s There were no new hadolint issues.
+1 💚 shellcheck 0m 1s There were no new shellcheck issues.
+1 💚 whitespace 0m 1s The patch has no whitespace issues.
+1 💚 xml 0m 1s The patch has no ill-formed XML file.
-1 ❌ javadoc 0m 46s tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 2 new + 0 unchanged - 99 fixed = 2 total (was 99)
+1 💚 javadoc 0m 34s tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 31 fixed = 0 total (was 31)
-1 ❌ javadoc 2m 17s root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 with JDK Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 generated 81 new + 0 unchanged - 99 fixed = 81 total (was 99)
+1 💚 javadoc 0m 44s tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 100 fixed = 0 total (was 100)
+1 💚 javadoc 0m 33s tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 32 fixed = 0 total (was 32)
+1 💚 javadoc 1m 55s root-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu120.04-b07 generated 0 new + 0 unchanged - 484 fixed = 0 total (was 484)
+1 💚 findbugs 8m 59s the patch passed
_ Other Tests _
+1 💚 unit 5m 32s tez-dag in the patch passed.
+1 💚 unit 0m 45s tez-protobuf-history-plugin in the patch passed.
+1 💚 unit 69m 35s root in the patch passed.
+1 💚 asflicense 1m 52s The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
175m 15s
Subsystem Report/Notes
Docker ClientAPI=1.41 ServerAPI=1.41 base: https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/Dockerfile
GITHUB PR #192
JIRA Issue TEZ-4363
Optional Tests dupname asflicense hadolint shellcheck shelldocs javac javadoc unit xml compile spotbugs findbugs checkstyle
uname Linux a1e51856f9cb 4.15.0-175-generic #184-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 24 17:48:36 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Build tool maven
Personality personality/tez.sh
git revision master / adcc313
Default Java Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07
Multi-JDK versions /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-amd64:Private Build-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64:Private Build-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07
mvninstall https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-mvninstall-root.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.txt
compile https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-compile-root-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.txt
checkstyle https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/buildtool-branch-checkstyle-root.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-javadoc-tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-javadoc-tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-javadoc-root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-javadoc-root-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.txt
findbugs https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-tez-dag.txt
findbugs https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-tez-plugins_tez-protobuf-history-plugin.txt
findbugs https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-root.txt
javac https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
javac https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root-jdkPrivateBuild-1.8.0_312-8u312-b07-0ubuntu1~20.04-b07.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/diff-javadoc-javadoc-tez-dag-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
javadoc https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/artifact/out/diff-javadoc-javadoc-root-jdkPrivateBuild-11.0.15+10-Ubuntu-0ubuntu0.20.04.1.txt
Test Results https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/testReport/
Max. process+thread count 2089 (vs. ulimit of 5500)
modules C: tez-dag tez-plugins/tez-protobuf-history-plugin . U: .
Console output https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/tez-multibranch/job/PR-192/10/console
versions git=2.25.1 maven=3.6.3 shellcheck=0.7.1 hadolint=1.18.0-0-g76eee5c
Powered by Apache Yetus 0.12.0 https://yetus.apache.org

This message was automatically generated.

@amanraj2520
Copy link
Contributor

@abstractdog @mark-bathori Has this change completed or are there further patches that need to be done. Please let me know if I can also help in getting this done.

@amanraj2520
Copy link
Contributor

@abstractdog @mark-bathori Are there any blockers for this. This has been idle for over couple of months

@abstractdog abstractdog self-requested a review July 20, 2022 07:01
@abstractdog
Copy link
Contributor

checked locally, test failures are only because of the nature of precommit: we can change protobuf version on-the-fly locally by -Dprotobuf.version, also can change the protobuf version in yetus docker image, but we don't guarantee they're in sync
for example: we build yetus image (protobuf 3.x), but run mvn install without the patch also before testing (protobuf 2.x)

so failures should not happen when this patch is committed to master

what I checked locally, all passed:

#applied this patch
mvn clean install -DskipTests #protobuf version is the new 3.x
mvn clean install -pl tez-dag #protobuf version is the new 3.x, run some tests
mvn clean install -DskipTests-Dprotobuf.version=2.5.0
mvn clean install -pl tez-dag -Dprotobuf.version=2.5.0, run some tests

Copy link
Contributor

@abstractdog abstractdog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM +1

@amanraj2520
Copy link
Contributor

@abstractdog LGTM, +1. Can we merge these changes ?

@abstractdog abstractdog merged commit c386865 into apache:master Jul 22, 2022
prabhjyotsingh added a commit to acceldata-io/tez that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2024
…Bathori reviewed by Laszlo Bodor, Aman Raj)"

This reverts commit c386865.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants