Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Duplicate
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 0.8.2
    • Component/s: core
    • Labels:
      None
    1. karaf-itest-fixes.patch
      3 kB
      Ioannis Canellos
    2. whirr-670-pom-1.5.3.patch
      0.5 kB
      Steve Loughran
    3. whirr-670-pom.patch
      0.5 kB
      Steve Loughran
    4. WHIRR-670.patch
      20 kB
      Ioannis Canellos

      Issue Links

        Activity

        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment -

        I am attaching a patch which upgrades to jclouds 1.5.2.

        It also does the following:
        i) Upgrades the karaf feature to use jclouds-karaf 1.5.2.
        ii) Modifies Dynamic implementation of ComputeCache to use the compute context name (introduced in 1.5.2) as the key.
        iii) aligns karaf commands to make use of the compute context name option.

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - I am attaching a patch which upgrades to jclouds 1.5.2. It also does the following: i) Upgrades the karaf feature to use jclouds-karaf 1.5.2. ii) Modifies Dynamic implementation of ComputeCache to use the compute context name (introduced in 1.5.2) as the key. iii) aligns karaf commands to make use of the compute context name option.
        Hide
        Tom White added a comment -

        Thanks for the patch Ioannis. It looks good to me, although it would be better to split out the Karaf changes to another JIRA since they are independent aren't they?

        Also, did you try running any integration tests with jclouds 1.5.2?

        Show
        Tom White added a comment - Thanks for the patch Ioannis. It looks good to me, although it would be better to split out the Karaf changes to another JIRA since they are independent aren't they? Also, did you try running any integration tests with jclouds 1.5.2?
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - - edited

        All 3 changes are "linked", but yeah ii and/or iii could be part of a separate Jira pointing to this one.

        I've run the integration tests and did have a failures in BlobCacheTest which doesn't seem to be related with the contnents of the patch (I have the same with a clean trunk too).

        I'll need some time to provide more details.

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - - edited All 3 changes are "linked", but yeah ii and/or iii could be part of a separate Jira pointing to this one. I've run the integration tests and did have a failures in BlobCacheTest which doesn't seem to be related with the contnents of the patch (I have the same with a clean trunk too). I'll need some time to provide more details.
        Hide
        Steve Loughran added a comment -

        this is the patch purely for the POM

        Show
        Steve Loughran added a comment - this is the patch purely for the POM
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        Why not 1.5.3 as per Adrian's comment?

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - Why not 1.5.3 as per Adrian's comment?
        Hide
        Steve Loughran added a comment -

        didn't get adrian's comment until after this patch. I have upgrade locally -I'll change the title and the patch

        Show
        Steve Loughran added a comment - didn't get adrian's comment until after this patch. I have upgrade locally -I'll change the title and the patch
        Hide
        Steve Loughran added a comment -

        patch created against trunk

        Show
        Steve Loughran added a comment - patch created against trunk
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - - edited

        The initial problem remains. Do the integration tests pass?
        I had some failures, but I had the same failures with 1.5.1 anyway. Didn't had the time to investigate more.

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - - edited The initial problem remains. Do the integration tests pass? I had some failures, but I had the same failures with 1.5.1 anyway. Didn't had the time to investigate more.
        Hide
        Andrew Bayer added a comment -

        Ioannis - will the main patch work with jclouds 1.5.8?

        Show
        Andrew Bayer added a comment - Ioannis - will the main patch work with jclouds 1.5.8?
        Hide
        Andrew Bayer added a comment -

        So karaf itests are still failing miserably against 1.5.8. I've tweaked the Jenkins job to actually run against git and we should hopefully have the test failures there soon - https://builds.apache.org/job/Whirr-Ubuntu/

        Show
        Andrew Bayer added a comment - So karaf itests are still failing miserably against 1.5.8. I've tweaked the Jenkins job to actually run against git and we should hopefully have the test failures there soon - https://builds.apache.org/job/Whirr-Ubuntu/
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment -

        I'll have a look

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - I'll have a look
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment -

        Here's a patch for fixing the karaf itests.

        It actually also upgrades to jclouds-karaf 1.5.8 (was still using 1.5.0). Upgrades karaf to 2.2.10.

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - Here's a patch for fixing the karaf itests. It actually also upgrades to jclouds-karaf 1.5.8 (was still using 1.5.0). Upgrades karaf to 2.2.10.
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment -

        If someone has the cycles to ack at this one (the itest fixes patch). I'll rework and resubmit the main patch in a new jira.

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - If someone has the cycles to ack at this one (the itest fixes patch). I'll rework and resubmit the main patch in a new jira.
        Hide
        Andrew Bayer added a comment -

        Actually, could you do the patch on WHIRR-716, since that is where the tree is actually at right now?

        Show
        Andrew Bayer added a comment - Actually, could you do the patch on WHIRR-716 , since that is where the tree is actually at right now?
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        +1 looks good to me.

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - +1 looks good to me.
        Hide
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment -

        Thanks!

        Show
        Ioannis Canellos added a comment - Thanks!

          People

          • Assignee:
            Ioannis Canellos
            Reporter:
            Tom White
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development