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.

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

Fix for SI-9881 in branch 2.11.x #6195

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2018

Conversation

mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor

@mpetruska mpetruska commented Nov 24, 2017

Retrofits fix for SI-9881 to branch 2.11.x. Contains the changes of #5640 .


This change should fix Spark issue 22393

@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not sure what causes the failure: "combined — Found earlier commit(s) marked failure: 68118b"...

@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jenkins, re-test this please.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

/rebuild

@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

It seems that 68118b failed due to the fact I did not sign the cla before I created the PR; and 89150d0 fails because the 68118b failed...
Not sure how can we fix this...

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

yeah, looks like a Scabot limitation. we can just /nothingtoseehere it before merging

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

note that in general, we're no longer accepting changes for 2.11.x and there are currently no plans for a 2.11.13 release. you might able to persuade @adriaanm, but you'd probably need to explicitly make a case that this is both sufficiently critical and sufficiently safe

@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, thanks for the info. The bug does not seem to be critical (marked as minor in Jira), so I don't think we should make too much effort to merge/release this one.
Currently looking for alternative fixes for the issue; it seems that the problem only appears if isClassBased is set to true. Will look for a way to force Spark-shell to a non-class based behaviour, if possible.

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

I would be open to a 2.11 release dedicated to fixing bugs that affect Spark (at least a half dozen, to make it worth cutting a release), if someone is willing to step up and coordinate the work. We can't afford to invest in 2.11 anymore, but I won't stand in the way of progress :-) (Wellllll, ideally, the progress would be for Spark to upgrade to 2.12 ;-))

Regarding this bug: the workaround of turning of the class based encoding is unlikely to work because I think Spark relies on it for improved serialization or lower memory retention?

@retronym retronym mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2017
1 task
@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @adriaanm,
Thank you for the information and the opportunity.
I looked into Spark issues related to "Spark-shell" and came up with a list of tickets that have some chance of being caused by a bug in the Scala 2.11 repl:

  • SPARK-22393 created: 2017/10/17 (confirmed, this is bug cause by the underlying Scala repl)
  • SPARK-20706 created: 2017/05/11 (unconfirmed)
  • SPARK-10806 created: 2015/09/15 (unconfirmed)
  • SPARK-7043 created: 2015/04/15 (unconfirmed)
  • SPARK-5150 created: 2015/01/08 (unconfirmed)

Based on this list, I find it highly unprobable to collect the number of changes that would warrant a 2.11 release.
Thanks for the info and the opportunity, though.

@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

As discussed above, it does not seem practical to plan a release for these changes.

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for digging in, @mpetruska! We are still considering another 2.11 with some other small fixes, so we could try to tackle at least a few of the spark shell issues that have a low chance of causing regressions. Track scala/scala-dev#451 for the planning around it. I expect a release either late this year or beginning of January.

@mpetruska mpetruska restored the SI-9881-fix-retrofit-2.11 branch November 29, 2017 16:25
@mpetruska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Re-opening to allow tracking the changes in scala/scala-dev#451.

@mpetruska mpetruska reopened this Nov 29, 2017
@SethTisue SethTisue added this to the 2.11.13 milestone Nov 30, 2017
asfgit pushed a commit to apache/spark that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2017
…lass constructors, extends clause

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

[SPARK-22393](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-22393)

## How was this patch tested?

With a new test case in `RepSuite`

----

This code is a retrofit of the Scala [SI-9881](scala/bug#9881) bug fix, which never made it into the Scala 2.11 branches. Pushing these changes directly to the Scala repo is not practical (see: scala/scala#6195).

Author: Mark Petruska <[email protected]>

Closes #19846 from mpetruska/SPARK-22393.
@SethTisue SethTisue added the WIP label Feb 24, 2018
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

SethTisue commented Feb 24, 2018

labeling as WIP so it doesn't show up when filter on that label's absence

@adriaanm adriaanm force-pushed the SI-9881-fix-retrofit-2.11 branch from 89150d0 to a97cefd Compare June 1, 2018 09:11
@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Jun 1, 2018

Tested locally. TODO: bring back CI for 2.11.x if we're going to do cut another release.

@adriaanm adriaanm merged commit 4842938 into scala:2.11.x Jun 1, 2018
@SethTisue SethTisue removed the WIP label Jun 4, 2018
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

@jpallas
Copy link

jpallas commented Jun 4, 2018

Is … is this complaining about white space (maybe Windows line-ending issue)?

% diff Y:\jenkins\workspace\scala-2.11.x-integrate-windows\test\files\run\t9880-9881-run.log Y:\jenkins\workspace\scala-2.11.x-integrate-windows\test\files\run\t9880-9881.checkdiff Y:\jenkins\workspace\scala-2.11.x-integrate-windows\test\files\run\t9880-9881-run.log Y:\jenkins\workspace\scala-2.11.x-integrate-windows\test\files\run\t9880-9881.check
--- t9880-9881.check
+++ t9880-9881-run.log
@@ -15,3 +15,3 @@
 
-scala>
+scala> 
 
@@ -28,3 +28,3 @@
 
-scala>
+scala> 
 

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

very likely Windows line endings

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

attempting a fix over at #6777

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants