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

WT-12961 Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD #10572

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 22, 2024
Merged

WT-12961 Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD #10572

merged 2 commits into from
May 22, 2024

Conversation

y123456yz
Copy link
Contributor

@y123456yz y123456yz commented May 8, 2024 •
edited

Txn log improve
fix bug for some log Missing delimiter
add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD

WT-12961

@wiredtiger-pr-bot wiredtiger-pr-bot
Copy link

Hi @y123456yz, thank you for your submission!
Please make sure to sign our Contributor Agreement (if you haven't already) and provide us with editor permissions on your branch. Instructions on how do that can be found here.

@y123456yz y123456yz changed the title Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD WT-12961: Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD May 8, 2024
@y123456yz
Copy link
Contributor Author

sorry, PR WT-12799 is Revert, because unit-test-hook-tiered-timestamp tests fails in __txn_timestamp_usage_check.

This is my new PR, it is related to WT-12799.
thanks.

@luke-pearson luke-pearson changed the title WT-12961: Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD WT-12961 Txn log improve and add macro OLDEST_STRICT_THRESHOLD May 8, 2024
@luke-pearson
Copy link
Contributor

I have added the previously failing task to the list of tasks to execute.

@luke-pearson luke-pearson self-requested a review May 8, 2024 15:52
@evergreen-ci-prod Evergreen CI Prod
Copy link

Test coverage is too low, this change probably shouldn't be merged as-is.

Metric (for added/changed code) Coverage
Line coverage 22% (5/23)
Branch coverage 20% (6/30)

⚠️ This PR touches methods that have an extremely high complexity score!

@raviprakashgiri29 raviprakashgiri29 self-requested a review May 9, 2024 22:47
@raviprakashgiri29
Copy link
Contributor

The test fix looks good to me. Merge whenever @luke-pearson reviews other parts of code.

luke-pearson
luke-pearson approved these changes May 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@luke-pearson luke-pearson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

raviprakashgiri29
raviprakashgiri29 approved these changes May 14, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@raviprakashgiri29 raviprakashgiri29 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@raviprakashgiri29 raviprakashgiri29 added this pull request to the merge queue May 22, 2024
Merged via the queue into wiredtiger:develop with commit 26ff047 May 22, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@luke-pearson luke-pearson luke-pearson approved these changes

@raviprakashgiri29 raviprakashgiri29 raviprakashgiri29 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@y123456yz @luke-pearson @raviprakashgiri29