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

Split Reactive Messaging Fat #30587

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: integration
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Split Reactive Messaging Fat #30587

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1,010 −190

Conversation

abutch3r
Copy link
Member

@abutch3r abutch3r commented Jan 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Due to the addition of MP7 repeats, we are regularly seeing the RM fat timeout during SOE runs. As such it makes sense to split the fat.

This division has been done based on core functionality tests and Kafka Security. Given that Kakfa security is a focused area, if we were to do similar work for another messaging provider, we would probably split it out in this way.

There is some duplication of application code between them given the prolifict use of the base messaging beans, but given these do not change, for now this is OK, if another suite was to be added to this, then these should be moved into the common repo.

Fixes RTC 299964

################################################################################################

Delete this section and fill in the remaining info from the template

ATTENTION, READ THIS: Updated July 2024

Read and understand this completely, then delete the static part of the template.

If a reviewer or merger sees this template, they should fail the review or merge.

If this code change is fixing a user-visible bug in previously released code, it MUST
have an associated issue mentioned in the PR text or description.

  • That Issue also MUST be labelled “release bug”

    This directs automation to scrape this fix for inclusion in the next release's
    list of bugs fixed.

  • The linkage between PR and Issue should use the Fixes #... syntax rather than a manual
    link via the Development widget.

Otherwise, a link to an issue or specific issue labels are optional.

For full details, please see this wiki page: https://github.com/OpenLiberty/open-liberty/wiki/Open-Liberty-Conventions
################################################################################################

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 20, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ❌ completed with errors/failures.)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 62 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 20, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ❌ completed with errors/failures.)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 59 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 21, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ❌ completed with errors/failures.)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 62 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_SwKD0Ng_Ee-0yqtOHBleJw

Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 22, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ❌ completed with errors/failures.)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 62 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_hbTToNkxEe-0yqtOHBleJw

Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 23, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ❌ completed with errors/failures.)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@abutch3r
Split Reactive Messaging Fat
edc6692 
Due to the addition of MP7 repeats, we are regularly seeing the RM fat timeout during SOE runs. As such it makes sense to split the fat.

This division has been done based on core functionality tests and Kafka Security. Given that Kakfa security is a focused area, if we were to do similar work for another messaging provider, we would probably split it out in this way.

There is some duplication of application code between them given the prolifict use of the base messaging beans, but given these do not change, for now this is OK, if another suite was to be added to this, then these should be moved into the common repo.
@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 62 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_JiNLwdnaEe-0yqtOHBleJw

Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@abutch3r
Copy link
Member Author

abutch3r commented Jan 24, 2025 •
edited by LibbyBot
Loading

#build (view Open Liberty Personal Build - ⏳InProgress)

Note: Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees.

@LibbyBot
Copy link

Code analysis and actions

DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.

  • 61 FAT files were changed, added, or removed.

  • Check that the build did not break the affected FAT suite(s).

  • 1 test infrastructure code files were changed.

  • Test failures/errors in the build could be due to these changes.

  • Please describe in a separate comment how you tested your changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
noproductcode
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@abutch3r @LibbyBot