[infinispan-dev] StoreByValueTest tck test

[Manik Surtani]

On 24 Jan 2013, at 15:39, Vladimir Blagojevic <vblagoje at redhat.com> wrote:

> No valid reason Manik. In summary I thought I would have gotten our keys/values serialized even in local VM if I turn on storeAsBinary but that does not seem to be the case.

Is it not?  Perhaps it is only serialised the first time a serial form is necessary.  You can get around this by calling compact()  

http://docs.jboss.org/infinispan/5.1/apidocs/org/infinispan/Cache.html#compact()

But this definitely isn't the most optimal way of doing things.  Perhaps a new config option for eager serialisation might be necessary, but for now calling compact() should work.

> I need to use storeAsBinary to complete a feature of JSR 107 that allows storing of key/value pairs as serialized values rather than simple references.

Yup, I realise.

> 
> TBH, I am not sure how can we do this given mechanisms we have in place. I would have to implement serialization/deserialization in our jsr 107 project but that would be a wrong path if we can somehow turn on our own existing storeAsBinary for in VM stored objects (see Galder's email on what is currently done)
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Vladimir
> On 13-01-24 7:09 AM, Manik Surtani wrote:
>> JSR 107's storeAsBinary and our storeAsBinary are conceptually the same.  You get a defensive copy and this should work.
>> 
>> But see my comment below:
>> 
>> Also adding Mircea in cc.  Any reason why you're not using infinispan-dev for this?
>> 
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:00, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey Vladimir,
>>> 
>>> IIRC, for performance reasons, even with storeAsBinary, Infinispan keeps the data as normal instance locally. When data is serialized and sent to other nodes, again for performance reasons, it keeps it as raw or byte[] format.
>>> 
>>> So, storing objects by value only happens in counted occassions when storeAsBinary is enabled.
>>> 
>>> You can track it by using a debugger and see how the the MarshalledValue instances are created.
>>> 
>>> Not sure how to fix this without some extra configuration option.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic <vblagoje at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Galder,
>>>> 
>>>> A quick search of help from you beacuse you are more familiar with this area (storeAsBinary) than I am. There is a tck test that checks storing of objects by value not by reference in the cache [1]. I thought that if we set our underlying cache to be storeAsBinary we would handle this tck requirement (store by value if neeed rather than by reference). However, StoreByValueTest fails although I set our underlying Infinispan cache to be storeAsBinary. I am using local cache athough I tried with transport and dist_async setup as well - same result. Any ideas what is going on?
>>>> 
>>>> Have a look at the test [1] , result I get are below:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Running org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest
>>>> Jan 23, 2013 12:35:29 PM org.jsr107.tck.util.ExcludeList <init>
>>>> INFO: ===== ExcludeList url=file:/Users/vladimir/workspace/jsr107/jsr107tck/implementation-tester/target/test-classes/ExcludeList
>>>> Defined org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest config StoreAsBinaryConfiguration{enabled=true, storeKeysAsBinary=true, storeValuesAsBinary=true}
>>>> Tests run: 6, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 21.852 sec <<< FAILURE!
>>>> 
>>>> Results :
>>>> 
>>>> Failed tests: get_Existing_MutateValue(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:34 EST 2013> but was: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:34 EST 2013>
>> ??  These seem the same to me?  How is the TCK testing for these two values?  By reference?  Or using .equals()?
>> 
>>>> get_Existing_MutateKey(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected:<Wed Jan 23 12:35:38 EST 2013> but was:<null>
>> This seems a bigger issue.  You might want to look at Infinispan logs here?
>> 
>>>> getAndPut_NotThere(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:41 EST 2013> but was: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:41 EST 2013>
>> Again, see my first comment.
>> 
>>>> getAndPut_Existing_MutateValue(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:45 EST 2013> but was: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:45 EST 2013>
>> Again, see my first comment.
>> 
>>>> getAndPut_Existing_NonSameKey_MutateValue(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:48 EST 2013> but was: java.util.Date<Wed Jan 23 12:35:48 EST 2013>
>> Again, see my first comment.
>> 
>>>> getAndPut_Existing_NonSameKey_MutateKey(org.jsr107.tck.StoreByValueTest): expected:<Wed Jan 23 12:35:51 EST 2013> but was:<null>
>>>> 
>>>> Tests run: 6, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/cache-tests/src/test/java/org/jsr107/tck/StoreByValueTest.java
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Galder Zamarreño
>>> galder at redhat.com
>>> twitter.com/galderz
>>> 
>>> Project Lead, Escalante
>>> http://escalante.io
>>> 
>>> Engineer, Infinispan
>>> http://infinispan.org
>>> 
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> manik at jboss.org
>> twitter.com/maniksurtani
>> 
>> Platform Architect, JBoss Data Grid
>> http://red.ht/data-grid
>> 
> 

--
Manik Surtani
manik at jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani

Platform Architect, JBoss Data Grid
http://red.ht/data-grid