Re: [wildfly-dev] Version ownership (conflict?): Apache Avro

On 14 August 2017 at 15:48, James Perkins <jperkins(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > There's no way we can have tests for every feature that every project brings > into WildFly. Indeed: we could add some more tests, but there's a practical limit; the combined Hibernate projects would potentially contribute some ~8000 additional tests - but that's also adding some 3 hours testing to each build, which doesn't scale. You might want to hand-pick some strategical ones covering integration, but such a manual selection is bound to be out of date in no time. On the other hand Carlo make a good point: the need to make sure such things don't happen again. I suspect the solution is to be found in some evolution of the "feature packs" concept. The primary problem is that in upstream (Hibernate projects) we pick our own dependencies and build our own modules. This same structure is then replicated in WildFly, but the structure of the modules and the versions are just crafted by humans to look like the same - which introduces the need for us to "watch" what you're all changing, as versions could drift apart, to the point of not actually working correctly in some cases. We need to make sure that the very same combination of module definitions and dependencies that we use to test upstream is incorporater verbatim into WildFly. That would be a reliable solution, and without the need to expand on the testsuite dimensions - neither code (maintenance) nor build times. It would also avoid you all needing to install the 30+ RDBMS vendors & versions we support to actually run all those tests. Tomaž had kindly contributed a prototype for Hibernate Search to publish feature packs, and I loved the idea as it addresses such problems, but then we failed to find a consensus about how this would work. I'm still looking forward to hear some clarification on such plans: - http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/2017-January/005686.html Thanks, Sanne > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> These form of conflicts must be guarded in a test(suite) that is part of >> WildFly release criteria. >> >> Carlo >> >> >> On 08/12/2017 11:44 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> Thanks James! I've sent a PR to restore the previous version. >>> >>> I'll be checking some more cross-project dependency requirements next >>> weeek. >>> >>> On 12 August 2017 at 01:08, James Perkins <jperkins(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> It looks like it came in as part of >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7908. I'm personally not a big fan >>>> of >>>> these sweeping version updates like this for this exact reason. We've >>>> had >>>> issues with this type of thing before and I do think we need a better >>>> approach. >>>> >>>> IMO we can definitely downgrade this. I also see no other modules that >>>> depend on it either. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I just noticed that the Apache Avro version included in WildFly was >>>>> upgraded to 1.8.1. >>>>> >>>>> This breaks Hibernate Search. It wasn't caught by automated >>>>> integration tests as this aspect wasn't covered by integration tests >>>>> within the wildfly codebase - we have them within Hibernate. >>>>> >>>>> A quick grep on the module definitions doesn't reveal any other user, >>>>> and "git blame" seems to suggest it was updated just for the sake of >>>>> updating some components.. so I'm guessing there is no other >>>>> stackeholder I should align with? >>>>> >>>>> 1# Could we please revert it to 1.7.6, which is what Hibernate Search >>>>> requires? >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively we'll need some ad-hoc coding on Hibernate Search and a >>>>> new version respin - with all associated risks - just for the sake of >>>>> updating this. >>>>> >>>>> 2# What can we do to prevent such things in the future? >>>>> >>>>> I can of course contribute some more integration tests but it's never >>>>> going to be enough: there will always be more tests "upstream". Could >>>>> we rather agree on some improved communication process when you all >>>>> consider updating an indirect dependency? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Sanne >>>>> >>>>> - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9221 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> James R. Perkins >>>> JBoss by Red Hat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >>> > > > -- > James R. Perkins > JBoss by Red Hat