Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

HPCC-32885 Add POC unittests for new eclccserver jobs #19427

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: candidate-9.10.x
Choose a base branch
from
Open

HPCC-32885 Add POC unittests for new eclccserver jobs #19427

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ghalliday
Copy link
Member

@ghalliday ghalliday commented Jan 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

@ghalliday ghalliday requested a review from jakesmith January 17, 2025 10:47
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

Jira Issue: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net//browse/HPCC-32885

Jirabot Action Result:
Assigning user: [email protected]
Workflow Transition To: Merge Pending
Updated PR

@ghalliday
Copy link
Member Author

@jakesmith pushed for review/discussion.
This PR implements a unit test that mimics the way that I think the cpp server can be adapted to use the new priority queues. Please take a look and see what you think and whether this could be applied to thor.
It does not address the option to run a workunit using a different version. I think that could be handled by

i) pushing the workunit onto a childqueue mangled with the version number
ii) waiting for a time to see if it is removed
iii) if not, start an instance that will only listen to the childqueue mangled with the version number.

That should mean that linger will still work for workunits running on a different version. Thoughts?

jakesmith
jakesmith reviewed Jan 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ghalliday - 1 minor issue with an unused var. and a couple of questions.

testing/unittests/dalitests.cpp
virtual void processAll() override
{
Owned<IJobQueue> childQueue = createJobQueue(childQueueName);
__uint64 priority = 0;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

unused

testing/unittests/dalitests.cpp
break;
}
bool ret = processItem(item);
if (!ret)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps a comment here to clarify.

This is if end of queue, then queued EOQ to main queue?

testing/unittests/dalitests.cpp
{
for (;;)
{
__uint64 priority = getTimeStampNowValue();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

logically, could this CppJobProcessor be a derivative of PriorityJobProcessor (if the item handling was a virtual) ?
(would clarify that this is a special case of a priority job processor if so)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jakesmith jakesmith jakesmith left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@ghalliday @jakesmith