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

streamingccl: multi-node unit tests #85735

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 15, 2022

Conversation

samiskin
Copy link
Contributor

@samiskin samiskin commented Aug 8, 2022

None of our tests used to run with multiple nodes and a scattered table,
so this PR re-enables the unavailable node test and creates a new basic
multinode test.

It also fixes a bug where if the stream creation statement was retried, it
would now error on an existing tenant, since the tenant creation wasn't
associated with the overall transaction.

Release note: None

@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@samiskin samiskin force-pushed the streaming-multinode-tests branch 4 times, most recently from 7c86185 to 4e170b7 Compare August 11, 2022 12:15
None of our tests used to run with multiple nodes and a scattered table,
so this PR re-enables the unvavailable node test and creates a new basic
multinode test.

Release note: None
@samiskin samiskin marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2022 16:16
Copy link
Contributor

@gh-casper gh-casper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I remember we had the ingestion job cutover bug in multiple nodes mode. Is this PR to fix that? It'll be better to update the description to briefly describe where the bug is and how it's fixed?

@samiskin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gh-casper The issue didn't end up happening anymore, at least not like it used to, so I think it was somehow fixed by one of the PRs that were in flight at the time. The only bug fix here was around the creation statement being retried, added that to the description now 👍

It's likely that #85866 was the issue I was seeing during the roachprod demo.

Copy link
Contributor

@gh-casper gh-casper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @samiskin)

@samiskin
Copy link
Contributor Author

bors r+

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Aug 15, 2022

Build failed:

@samiskin
Copy link
Contributor Author

bors r+

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Aug 15, 2022

Build succeeded:

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.

3 participants