Skip to content

[CI] FullClusterRestartIT.testRecovery fails #51640

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
cbuescher opened this issue Jan 29, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #51651
Closed

[CI] FullClusterRestartIT.testRecovery fails #51640

cbuescher opened this issue Jan 29, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #51651
Assignees
Labels
:Distributed Indexing/Recovery Anything around constructing a new shard, either from a local or a remote source. >test-failure Triaged test failures from CI

Comments

@cbuescher
Copy link
Member

Log https://elasticsearch-ci.elastic.co/job/elastic+elasticsearch+master+default-distro/718/console
https://gradle-enterprise.elastic.co/s/fqcywooezw23y

There are several old issue like #46712 that look a bit like this but all are closed so I'm opening this one for the team to check if this is of interes and/or related.

Could not reproduce locally with

./gradlew ':qa:full-cluster-restart:v8.0.0#upgradedClusterTest' --tests "org.elasticsearch.upgrades.FullClusterRestartIT.testRecovery" \
  -Dtests.seed=162CC3078CFA3EA9 \
  -Dtests.security.manager=true \
  -Dtests.locale=en-PH \
  -Dtests.timezone=Pacific/Funafuti \
  -Dtests.distribution=default \
  -Dcompiler.java=13

Failure

java.lang.AssertionError: mismatch while checking for translog recovery
testrecovery 0 existing_store done 0
testrecovery 0 peer           done 0
 expected:<true> but was:<false>
	at __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([162CC3078CFA3EA9:D7DCBAABA1AAF40E]:0)
	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:834)
	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:118)
	at org.elasticsearch.upgrades.FullClusterRestartIT.testRecovery(FullClusterRestartIT.java:737)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:566)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner.invoke(RandomizedRunner.java:1750)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$8.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:938)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$9.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:974)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$10.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:988)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleSetupTeardownChained$1.evaluate(TestRuleSetupTeardownChained.java:49)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.AbstractBeforeAfterRule$1.evaluate(AbstractBeforeAfterRule.java:45)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleThreadAndTestName$1.evaluate(TestRuleThreadAndTestName.java:48)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures$1.evaluate(TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures.java:64)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleMarkFailure$1.evaluate(TestRuleMarkFailure.java:47)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl$StatementRunner.run(ThreadLeakControl.java:368)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl.forkTimeoutingTask(ThreadLeakControl.java:817)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl$3.evaluate(ThreadLeakControl.java:468)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner.runSingleTest(RandomizedRunner.java:947)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$5.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:832)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$6.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:883)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$7.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:894)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.AbstractBeforeAfterRule$1.evaluate(AbstractBeforeAfterRule.java:45)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleStoreClassName$1.evaluate(TestRuleStoreClassName.java:41)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule$1.evaluate(NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule.java:40)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule$1.evaluate(NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule.java:40)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleAssertionsRequired$1.evaluate(TestRuleAssertionsRequired.java:53)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleMarkFailure$1.evaluate(TestRuleMarkFailure.java:47)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures$1.evaluate(TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures.java:64)
	at org.apache.lucene.util.TestRuleIgnoreTestSuites$1.evaluate(TestRuleIgnoreTestSuites.java:54)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
	at com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl$StatementRunner.run(ThreadLeakControl.java:368)
	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:834)
@cbuescher cbuescher added >test-failure Triaged test failures from CI :Distributed Indexing/Recovery Anything around constructing a new shard, either from a local or a remote source. labels Jan 29, 2020
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (:Distributed/Recovery)

@dnhatn dnhatn self-assigned this Jan 29, 2020
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2020
testRecovery relies on the fact that shards are not flushed on inactive. 
Our CI recently was too slow. It took more than 20 minutes to complete
the full cluster restart suite. This slowness caused some shards of
testRecovery were flushed on inactive.

This commit increases the inactive time to 1h to reduce this noise.

Closes #51640
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2020
testRecovery relies on the fact that shards are not flushed on inactive. 
Our CI recently was too slow. It took more than 20 minutes to complete
the full cluster restart suite. This slowness caused some shards of
testRecovery were flushed on inactive.

This commit increases the inactive time to 1h to reduce this noise.

Closes #51640
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2020
testRecovery relies on the fact that shards are not flushed on inactive. 
Our CI recently was too slow. It took more than 20 minutes to complete
the full cluster restart suite. This slowness caused some shards of
testRecovery were flushed on inactive.

This commit increases the inactive time to 1h to reduce this noise.

Closes #51640
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2020
testRecovery relies on the fact that shards are not flushed on inactive. 
Our CI recently was too slow. It took more than 20 minutes to complete
the full cluster restart suite. This slowness caused some shards of
testRecovery were flushed on inactive.

This commit increases the inactive time to 1h to reduce this noise.

Closes #51640
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 31, 2020
testRecovery relies on the fact that shards are not flushed on inactive.
Our CI recently was too slow. It took more than 20 minutes to complete
the full cluster restart suite. This slowness caused some shards of
testRecovery were flushed on inactive.

This commit increases the inactive time to 1h to reduce this noise.

Closes #51640
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
:Distributed Indexing/Recovery Anything around constructing a new shard, either from a local or a remote source. >test-failure Triaged test failures from CI
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants