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

[SPARK-33173][CORE][TESTS] Use eventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuite #30072

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun commented Oct 17, 2020

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR aims to use eventually to fix the flakiness of the test case SPARK-33088: executor failed tasks trigger plugin calls.

Why are the changes needed?

The test case checks like the following.

assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskStart == 2)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskSucceeded == 0)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskFailed == 2)

Although first and second passed, the third can fail.

sbt.ForkMain$ForkError: org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: 1 did not equal 2
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:472)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException$(Assertions.scala:471)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:1231)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$AssertionsHelper.macroAssert(Assertions.scala:1295)
	at org.apache.spark.internal.plugin.PluginContainerSuite.$anonfun$new$8(PluginContainerSuite.scala:161)

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

This only improves the robustness.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

cc @mridulm and @tgravescs

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun changed the title [SPARK-33173][CORE][TESTS] Use eventually to check numOnTaskFailed [SPARK-33173][CORE][TESTS] Use eventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuite Oct 17, 2020
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 17, 2020

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/34528/

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

Could you review this, @viirya ?

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 17, 2020

Kubernetes integration test status success
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/34528/

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

This is very flaky. I saw this at least 3 places (Jenkins, my another PR and @sunchao 's PR).

Copy link
Member

@viirya viirya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

Copy link
Member

@HyukjinKwon HyukjinKwon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. Let's make it pass first.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, @viirya and @HyukjinKwon .

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 17, 2020

Test build #129923 has finished for PR 30072 at commit c5f9c1e.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you, @viirya , @HyukjinKwon , @mridulm .
Merged to master.

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun deleted the SPARK-33173 branch October 17, 2020 04:23
dongjoon-hyun pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Use `local[2]` to let tasks launch at the same time. And change counters (`numOnTaskXXX`) to `AtomicInteger` type to ensure thread safe.

### Why are the changes needed?

The test is still flaky after the fix #30072. See: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/30728/checks?check_run_id=1557987642

And it's easy to reproduce if you test it multiple times (e.g. 100) locally.

The test sets up a stage with 2 tasks to run on an executor with 1 core. So these 2 tasks have to be launched one by one.
The task-2 will be launched after task-1 fails. However, since we don't retry failed task in local mode  (MAX_LOCAL_TASK_FAILURES = 1), the stage will abort right away after task-1 fail and cancels the running task-2 at the same time. There's a chance that task-2 gets canceled before calling `PluginContainer.onTaskStart`, which leads to the test failure.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No

### How was this patch tested?

Tested manually after the fix and the test is no longer flaky.

Closes #30823 from Ngone51/debug-flaky-spark-33088.

Authored-by: yi.wu <yi.wu@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
dongjoon-hyun pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Use `local[2]` to let tasks launch at the same time. And change counters (`numOnTaskXXX`) to `AtomicInteger` type to ensure thread safe.

### Why are the changes needed?

The test is still flaky after the fix #30072. See: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/30728/checks?check_run_id=1557987642

And it's easy to reproduce if you test it multiple times (e.g. 100) locally.

The test sets up a stage with 2 tasks to run on an executor with 1 core. So these 2 tasks have to be launched one by one.
The task-2 will be launched after task-1 fails. However, since we don't retry failed task in local mode  (MAX_LOCAL_TASK_FAILURES = 1), the stage will abort right away after task-1 fail and cancels the running task-2 at the same time. There's a chance that task-2 gets canceled before calling `PluginContainer.onTaskStart`, which leads to the test failure.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No

### How was this patch tested?

Tested manually after the fix and the test is no longer flaky.

Closes #30823 from Ngone51/debug-flaky-spark-33088.

Authored-by: yi.wu <yi.wu@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
(cherry picked from commit 15616f4)
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
rshkv pushed a commit to palantir/spark that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2020
…` in PluginContainerSuite

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR aims to use `eventually` to fix the flakiness of the test case `SPARK-33088: executor failed tasks trigger plugin calls`.

### Why are the changes needed?

The test case checks like the following.
```scala
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskStart == 2)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskSucceeded == 0)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskFailed == 2)
```

Although first and second passed, the third can fail.
- https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/view/Spark%20QA%20Test%20(Dashboard)/job/spark-master-test-maven-hadoop-3.2-hive-2.3-jdk-11/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/org.apache.spark.internal.plugin/PluginContainerSuite/SPARK_33088__executor_failed_tasks_trigger_plugin_calls/
- https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/129919/testReport/
```
sbt.ForkMain$ForkError: org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: 1 did not equal 2
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:472)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException$(Assertions.scala:471)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:1231)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$AssertionsHelper.macroAssert(Assertions.scala:1295)
	at org.apache.spark.internal.plugin.PluginContainerSuite.$anonfun$new$8(PluginContainerSuite.scala:161)
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

This only improves the robustness.

Closes apache#30072 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-33173.

Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
jdcasale pushed a commit to palantir/spark that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2021
…` in PluginContainerSuite

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR aims to use `eventually` to fix the flakiness of the test case `SPARK-33088: executor failed tasks trigger plugin calls`.

### Why are the changes needed?

The test case checks like the following.
```scala
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskStart == 2)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskSucceeded == 0)
assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskFailed == 2)
```

Although first and second passed, the third can fail.
- https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/view/Spark%20QA%20Test%20(Dashboard)/job/spark-master-test-maven-hadoop-3.2-hive-2.3-jdk-11/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/org.apache.spark.internal.plugin/PluginContainerSuite/SPARK_33088__executor_failed_tasks_trigger_plugin_calls/
- https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/129919/testReport/
```
sbt.ForkMain$ForkError: org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: 1 did not equal 2
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:472)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions.newAssertionFailedException$(Assertions.scala:471)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$.newAssertionFailedException(Assertions.scala:1231)
	at org.scalatest.Assertions$AssertionsHelper.macroAssert(Assertions.scala:1295)
	at org.apache.spark.internal.plugin.PluginContainerSuite.$anonfun$new$8(PluginContainerSuite.scala:161)
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

This only improves the robustness.

Closes apache#30072 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-33173.

Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
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.

5 participants