Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-33173][CORE][TESTS] Use eventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuite - #30072
Closed
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
[SPARK-33173][CORE][TESTS] Use eventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuite#30072dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
eventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuite#30072dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Oct 17, 2020
MemberAuthor
cc @mridulm and @tgravescs |
eventually to check numOnTaskFailedeventually to check numOnTaskFailed in PluginContainerSuiteSparkQA
commented
Oct 17, 2020
Kubernetes integration test starting |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Oct 17, 2020
MemberAuthor
Could you review this, @viirya ? |
SparkQA
commented
Oct 17, 2020
Kubernetes integration test status success |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Oct 17, 2020
MemberAuthor
This is very flaky. I saw this at least 3 places (Jenkins, my another PR and @sunchao 's PR). |
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2020
HyukjinKwon
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good. Let's make it pass first.
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Oct 17, 2020
MemberAuthor
Thanks, @viirya and @HyukjinKwon . |
mridulm
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2020
SparkQA
commented
Oct 17, 2020
Test build #129923 has finished for PR 30072 at commit
|
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Oct 17, 2020
MemberAuthor
Thank you, @viirya , @HyukjinKwon , @mridulm . |
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$8(PluginContainerSuite.scala:161) ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? This only improves the robustness. Closesapache#30072 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-33173. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
jdcasale pushed a commit
to palantir/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2021
…` in PluginContainerSuite ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to use `eventually` to fix the flakiness of the test case `SPARK-33088: executor failed tasks trigger plugin calls`. ### Why are the changes needed? The test case checks like the following. ```scala assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskStart == 2) assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskSucceeded == 0) assert(TestSparkPlugin.executorPlugin.numOnTaskFailed == 2) ``` Although first and second passed, the third can fail. - https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/view/Spark%20QA%20Test%20(Dashboard)/job/spark-master-test-maven-hadoop-3.2-hive-2.3-jdk-11/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/org.apache.spark.internal.plugin/PluginContainerSuite/SPARK_33088__executor_failed_tasks_trigger_plugin_calls/ - https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/129919/testReport/ ``` sbt.ForkMain$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. Closesapache#30072 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-33173. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to use
eventuallyto fix the flakiness of the test caseSPARK-33088: executor failed tasks trigger plugin calls.Why are the changes needed?
The test case checks like the following.
Although first and second passed, the third can fail.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
This only improves the robustness.