[SPARK-1470][SPARK-1842] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api by witgo · Pull Request #1369 · apache/spark

witgo · 2014-07-11T04:13:02Z

No description provided.

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T04:17:38Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16552/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T05:49:44Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16552/consoleFull

witgo · 2014-07-11T05:54:12Z

Jenkins, test this please.

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T05:57:39Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16556/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T07:30:20Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16556/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T08:32:34Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16564/consoleFull

srowen · 2014-07-11T08:40:38Z

Wasn't this already decided against in #332 and again #1208 ? or is this not another PR for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1470 ?

witgo · 2014-07-11T08:53:44Z

#332 can't automatic test .
#1208 was messing up and I do not know how to solve . 😓

SparkQA · 2014-07-11T10:09:38Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16564/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-07-15T13:57:49Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16679/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-07-15T15:30:43Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16679/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T04:09:06Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17639/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T04:12:26Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17639/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T04:14:05Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17640/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T04:19:22Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17640/consoleFull

witgo · 2014-08-01T06:05:40Z

Jenkins, retest this please.

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T06:09:03Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17651/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T07:26:44Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17651/consoleFull

srowen · 2014-08-01T09:44:54Z

@witgo Some of the failure was just Jenkins acting up again (what could be behind the "Address already in use" suddenly? for all of these tests), but there is a MIMA failure at the end as well. If the API changes are OK they will have to be excluded from the MIMA check to pass.

`breeze 0.8.1` dependent on `scala-logging-slf4j 2.1.1` The relevant code on #1369 Author: witgo <witgo@qq.com> Closes#940 from witgo/breeze-8.0.1 and squashes the following commits: 65cc65e [witgo] update breeze to version 0.8.1

witgo · 2014-08-01T17:16:48Z

@srowen Thank you for your comments. And how to modify GenerateMIMAIgnore file to exclude a method? An example?

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T17:29:07Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17683/consoleFull

srowen · 2014-08-01T17:59:09Z

@witgo have a look at project/MimaExcludes.scala. Under the section starting with case v if v.startsWith("1.1") => you can add a Seq() with all the excludes necessary for your PR. The error messages tells you what you need to add.

Of course, the more important question, are those API changes on purpose and are they OK?

SparkQA · 2014-08-01T18:43:38Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17683/consoleFull

witgo · 2014-08-02T02:28:19Z

Jenkins, test this please.

SparkQA · 2014-08-02T02:34:15Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17738/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-02T03:51:29Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch FAILED unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17738/consoleFull

witgo · 2014-08-02T04:47:43Z

Jenkins, test this please.

SparkQA · 2014-08-02T04:49:07Z

QA tests have started for PR 1369. This patch merges cleanly.
View progress: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17748/consoleFull

SparkQA · 2014-08-02T06:12:05Z

QA results for PR 1369:
- This patch PASSES unit tests.
- This patch merges cleanly
- This patch adds no public classes

For more information see test ouptut:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/17748/consoleFull

pwendell · 2014-08-02T06:43:29Z

Hey on this one - it's helpful to see what this looks like - but my instinct is actually to move away from scala-logging entirely. We can upgrade ourselves, but all that does is force our users downstream to have to upgrade (even if they aren't using ml stuff at all), causing the same annoying headache as breeze is causing us. I'd prefer to just remove the (now very small) use of scala-logging and just continue to use the slf4j API directly. The mian benefit of scala-logging is the use of compile time macro's for some performance gain, but we've never in the entire history of Spark had any performance issues related to logging.

pwendell · 2014-08-02T06:55:52Z

I accidentally merged this in lieu of another patch. The merge has been reverted.

witgo · 2014-08-02T07:59:16Z

How to re-open this ?

witgo · 2014-08-02T15:27:04Z

@pwendell #1208 fits your idea?

`breeze 0.8.1` dependent on `scala-logging-slf4j 2.1.1` The relevant code on apache#1369 Author: witgo <witgo@qq.com> Closesapache#940 from witgo/breeze-8.0.1 and squashes the following commits: 65cc65e [witgo] update breeze to version 0.8.1

… directly sfl4j api Author: GuoQiang Li <witgo@qq.com> Closesapache#1369 from witgo/SPARK-1470_new and squashes the following commits: 66a1641 [GuoQiang Li] IncompatibleResultTypeProblem 73a89ba [GuoQiang Li] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api.

witgo changed the title ~~Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api~~[SPARK-1470,SPARK-1842] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j apiJul 11, 2014

witgo mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2014
[SPARK-1470][SPARK-1842] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api #332
Closed

witgo mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2014
[SPARK-1997] update breeze to version 0.8.1 #940
Closed

witgo changed the title ~~[SPARK-1470,SPARK-1842] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api~~[SPARK-1470][SPARK-1842] Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j apiAug 1, 2014

Use the scala-logging wrapper instead of the directly sfl4j api.
73a89ba

IncompatibleResultTypeProblem
66a1641

asfgit closed this in adc8303Aug 2, 2014

witgo deleted the SPARK-1470_new branch August 2, 2014 10:26

witgo restored the SPARK-1470_new branch August 2, 2014 10:26

witgo deleted the SPARK-1470_new branch August 2, 2014 10:26

witgo restored the SPARK-1470_new branch August 2, 2014 10:26

witgo deleted the SPARK-1470_new branch August 2, 2014 15:23

Uh oh!

Conversation

witgo commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

srowen commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 11, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 15, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 15, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

srowen commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

srowen commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 1, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

pwendell commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

pwendell commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

witgo commented Aug 2, 2014

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants