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
[WFCORE-6141][WFCORE-6156][WFCORE-6157][WFCORE-6158] Server Stability Fixes #5311
Conversation
Core -> Full Integration Build 12066 outcome was FAILURE using a merge of 21d0e80 Failed tests
|
…ityMonitor.awaitStability() in ContainerStateMonitor to ensure proper stability of services.
…ner stability to prevent leaving server in inconsistent state. Notice it is still the case server will not block forever when operation timeout is configured.
…by WFCORE-6156 This reverts commit 0ef150f.
21d0e80
to
4240d1e
Compare
import org.junit.Test; | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Unit tests of {@link ModelControllerImpl}. | ||
* | ||
* @author Brian Stansberry (c) 2011 Red Hat Inc. | ||
*/ | ||
@org.junit.Ignore | ||
@Ignore("WFCORE-6158") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @ropalka , would you mind adding a short description to WFCORE-6158? It is unclear your intention with this Jira, I'm going to merge this PR since I understand WFCORE-6158 is in place to just investigate whether this test case must be removed, but I'll leave the Jira unresolved until it is clear what you want to do with this case.
@@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ private void ensureWriteLockForRuntime() { | |||
ExecutionStatus origStatus = executionStatus; | |||
try { | |||
executionStatus = ExecutionStatus.AWAITING_STABILITY; | |||
modelController.awaitContainerStability(timeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, false); | |||
modelController.awaitContainerStability(timeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, false); // interruption forbidden - see WFCORE-6158 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess you wanted to use see WFCORE-6157, instead of seeing WFCORE-6158. We can correct it after merging, but could you confirm @ropalka ?
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-6141
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-6156
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-6157
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-6158