Narayana update to 7.0.1.Final

[marcosgopen]

The component upgrade brings some major updates, most notable are the TransactionReaper related issues: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JBTM-3830 and https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JBTM-3837. Then there other minor updates such as the issue related to #30491 which was resolved by https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JBTM-3821.

Tag: https://github.com/jbosstm/narayana/releases/tag/7.0.1.Final
Diff: jbosstm/narayana@7.0.0.Final...7.0.1.Final
Release Notes: https://issues.redhat.com/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12423360&styleName=Html&projectId=12310200

[mmusgrov]

@marcosgopen @yrodiere The LRA test failures are because the test cannot contact an external LRA coordinator running and I don't know what job config is needed to deploy such a coordinator such that it is accessible. However the log does report:

2024-02-27 08:29:55,847 INFO  [tc.qua.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest] (main) Container quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest started in PT1.157615776S

[yrodiere]

@marcosgopen @yrodiere The LRA test failures are because there is no external LRA coordinator running and I don't know what job config is needed to deploy such a coordinator.

Since the tests are pre-existing I'd expect that config to already be there... or have these tests been failing for a long time?

[mmusgrov]

I do see the following in the log:

2024-02-27 08:29:55,847 INFO  [tc.qua.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest] (main) Container quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest started in PT1.157615776S
2024-02-27 08:29:56,481 WARN  [io.qua.boo.BootstrapAppModelFactory] (main) Expected project directory /home/runner/work/quarkus/quarkus/tcks/microprofile-lra/target/quarkus-arquillian-test3075692299612060282/app does not match current project directory /home/runner/work/quarkus/quarkus/tcks/microprofile-lra

Is that related?

[yrodiere]

I do see the following in the log:

2024-02-27 08:29:55,847 INFO  [tc.qua.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest] (main) Container quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest started in PT1.157615776S
2024-02-27 08:29:56,481 WARN  [io.qua.boo.BootstrapAppModelFactory] (main) Expected project directory /home/runner/work/quarkus/quarkus/tcks/microprofile-lra/target/quarkus-arquillian-test3075692299612060282/app does not match current project directory /home/runner/work/quarkus/quarkus/tcks/microprofile-lra

Is that related?

It does look like it. I'm not familiar with Narayana tests.

Try running the tests locally with ./mvnw -f <path to pom> -Dstart-containers -Dtest-containers; provided you have docker locally, it should start containers just as it does on CI.

[gsmet]

@mmusgrov as mentioned in another PR, we have all our PRs suddently failing with these failures so it doesn't seem related to this work.
I would bet something has changed in the container image that we are using for testing.

[mmusgrov]

@marcosgopen Do you know if we updated "quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest" during the release?

[marcosgopen]

@marcosgopen Do you know if we updated "quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest" during the release?

We did not @mmusgrov

[mmusgrov]

In that case the follow up question is: can we find out what version of narayana is used by "quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest" and analyse why it might have broken tcks/microprofile-lra? In the meantime I am installing a docker environment on my laptop to do further investigation ...

[marcosgopen]

@marcosgopen Do you know if we updated "quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest" during the release?

Actually the quay.io/jbosstm/lra-coordinator:latest was updated 2 days ago.

[marcosgopen]

I could reproduce the error locally with latest (7.0.0.Final-3.8.0) version of lra-coordinator-quarkus. 7.0.0.Final-3.6.6 seems to work though.

[xstefank]

There is really an issue with the produced coordinator JAR but we will be pushing fixed tag soon.

[xstefank]

@marcosgopen pushed the new image to quay.io, can you force push to retrigger the tests?

[marcosgopen]

@marcosgopen pushed the new image to quay.io, can you force push to retrigger the tests?

Thanks @xstefank , I have just force pushed.

[mmusgrov]

To facilitate debugging this kind of issue with the container we need to capture the coordinator output using the testcontainers GenericContainer#getLogs() call unless the container output is already available to the CI job, @gsmet do you know if it is accessible?

[gsmet]

I don't think the container logs are accessible. Well, the startup logs are in the log output we have on GH Actions. Not sure if you need more?

[mmusgrov]

ok, in that case we will update the extension with a call to GenericContainer#getLogs() and dump that to standard output. We do need more since the output should have highlighted the problem.

[edit] yes it seems that there is a method annotated with @Observes(precedence = DEFAULT_PRECEDENCE) org.jboss.arquillian.test.spi.event.suite.AfterSuite event that we can use to dump the logs.

[xstefank]

@mmusgrov we will be testing the image also on the narayana side from now on where we will be able to catch this issues before the image release.

[marcosgopen]

I rebased this PR.

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit f9faae3.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

---

Flaky tests - Develocity

⚙️ JVM Tests - JDK 17

📦 extensions/smallrye-reactive-messaging-kafka/deployment

✖ io.quarkus.smallrye.reactivemessaging.kafka.deployment.dev.KafkaDevServicesDevModeTestCase.sseStream - History

• Assertion condition defined as a io.quarkus.smallrye.reactivemessaging.kafka.deployment.dev.KafkaDevServicesDevModeTestCase Expecting size of: [] to be greater than or equal to 2 but was 0 within 10 seconds. - org.awaitility.core.ConditionTimeoutException

org.awaitility.core.ConditionTimeoutException: 
Assertion condition defined as a io.quarkus.smallrye.reactivemessaging.kafka.deployment.dev.KafkaDevServicesDevModeTestCase 
Expecting size of:
  []
to be greater than or equal to 2 but was 0 within 10 seconds.
	at org.awaitility.core.ConditionAwaiter.await(ConditionAwaiter.java:167)
	at org.awaitility.core.AssertionCondition.await(AssertionCondition.java:119)
	at org.awaitility.core.AssertionCondition.await(AssertionCondition.java:31)

📦 integration-tests/opentelemetry

✖ io.quarkus.it.opentelemetry.EndUserEnabledTest.baseTest - History

• AttributesMap{data={http.client_ip=127.0.0.1, net.host.name=localhost, user_agent.original=Apache-HttpClient/4.5.14 (Java/17.0.10), http.target=/otel/enduser, code.function=dummy, net.host.port=8081, net.protocol.name=http, http.response_content_length=0, http.scheme=http, http.method=GET, http.status_code=200, code.namespace=io.quarkus.it.opentelemetry.util.EndUserResource, http.route=/otel/enduser}, capacity=128, totalAddedValues=13} ==> expected: <testUser> but was: <null> - org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError

org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: AttributesMap{data={http.client_ip=127.0.0.1, net.host.name=localhost, user_agent.original=Apache-HttpClient/4.5.14 (Java/17.0.10), http.target=/otel/enduser, code.function=dummy, net.host.port=8081, net.protocol.name=http, http.response_content_length=0, http.scheme=http, http.method=GET, http.status_code=200, code.namespace=io.quarkus.it.opentelemetry.util.EndUserResource, http.route=/otel/enduser}, capacity=128, totalAddedValues=13} ==> expected: <testUser> but was: <null>
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.build(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:151)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.buildAndThrow(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:132)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.failNotEqual(AssertEquals.java:197)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:182)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:1156)
	at io.quarkus.it.opentelemetry.EndUserEnabledTest.evaluateAttributes...

[marcosgopen]

@yrodiere Could I ask your review?

[yrodiere]

My review is not necessary at all here, I don't have any relevant knowledge. Since @mmusgrov doesn't seem opposed to the upgrade and @gastaldi approved, let's merge it.