Files
etcd/raft/testdata/campaign.txt
Tobias Schottdorf e8090e57a2 raft/rafttest: introduce datadriven testing
It has often been tedious to test the interactions between multi-member
Raft groups, especially when many steps were required to reach a certain
scenario. Often, this boilerplate was as boring as it is hard to write
and hard to maintain, making it attractive to resort to shortcuts
whenever possible, which in turn tended to undercut how meaningful and
maintainable the tests ended up being - that is, if the tests were even
written, which sometimes they weren't.

This change introduces a datadriven framework specifically for testing
deterministically the interaction between multiple members of a raft group
with the goal of reducing the friction for writing these tests to near
zero.

In the near term, this will be used to add thorough testing for joint
consensus (which is already available today, but wildly undertested),
but just converting an existing test into this framework has shown that
the concise representation and built-in inspection of log messages
highlights unexpected behavior much more readily than the previous unit
tests did (the test in question is `snapshot_succeed_via_app_resp`; the
reader is invited to compare the old and new version of it).

The main building block is `InteractionEnv`, which holds on to the state
of the whole system and exposes various relevant methods for
manipulating it, including but not limited to adding nodes, delivering
and dropping messages, and proposing configuration changes. All of this
is extensible so that in the future I hope to use it to explore the
phenomena discussed in

https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/issues/7625#issuecomment-488798263

which requires injecting appropriate "crash points" in the Ready
handling loop. Discussions of the "what if X happened in state Y"
can quickly be made concrete by "scripting up an interaction test".

Additionally, this framework is intentionally not kept internal to the
raft package.. Though this is in its infancy, a goal is that it should
be possible for a suite of interaction tests to allow applications to
validate that their Storage implementation behaves accordingly, simply
by running a raft-provided interaction suite against their Storage.
2019-08-12 11:13:51 +02:00

118 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext

log-level info
----
ok
add-nodes 3 voters=(1,2,3) index=2
----
INFO 1 switched to configuration voters=(1 2 3)
INFO 1 became follower at term 0
INFO newRaft 1 [peers: [1,2,3], term: 0, commit: 2, applied: 2, lastindex: 2, lastterm: 1]
INFO 2 switched to configuration voters=(1 2 3)
INFO 2 became follower at term 0
INFO newRaft 2 [peers: [1,2,3], term: 0, commit: 2, applied: 2, lastindex: 2, lastterm: 1]
INFO 3 switched to configuration voters=(1 2 3)
INFO 3 became follower at term 0
INFO newRaft 3 [peers: [1,2,3], term: 0, commit: 2, applied: 2, lastindex: 2, lastterm: 1]
campaign 1
----
INFO 1 is starting a new election at term 0
INFO 1 became candidate at term 1
INFO 1 received MsgVoteResp from 1 at term 1
INFO 1 [logterm: 1, index: 2] sent MsgVote request to 2 at term 1
INFO 1 [logterm: 1, index: 2] sent MsgVote request to 3 at term 1
stabilize
----
> 1 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
Lead:0 State:StateCandidate
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:2
Messages:
1->2 MsgVote Term:1 Log:1/2
1->3 MsgVote Term:1 Log:1/2
> delivering messages
1->2 MsgVote Term:1 Log:1/2
INFO 2 [term: 0] received a MsgVote message with higher term from 1 [term: 1]
INFO 2 became follower at term 1
INFO 2 [logterm: 1, index: 2, vote: 0] cast MsgVote for 1 [logterm: 1, index: 2] at term 1
> delivering messages
1->3 MsgVote Term:1 Log:1/2
INFO 3 [term: 0] received a MsgVote message with higher term from 1 [term: 1]
INFO 3 became follower at term 1
INFO 3 [logterm: 1, index: 2, vote: 0] cast MsgVote for 1 [logterm: 1, index: 2] at term 1
> 2 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:2
Messages:
2->1 MsgVoteResp Term:1 Log:0/0
> 3 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:2
Messages:
3->1 MsgVoteResp Term:1 Log:0/0
> delivering messages
2->1 MsgVoteResp Term:1 Log:0/0
INFO 1 received MsgVoteResp from 2 at term 1
INFO 1 has received 2 MsgVoteResp votes and 0 vote rejections
INFO 1 became leader at term 1
3->1 MsgVoteResp Term:1 Log:0/0
> 1 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
Lead:1 State:StateLeader
Entries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
1->2 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/2 Commit:2 Entries:[1/3 EntryNormal ""]
1->3 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/2 Commit:2 Entries:[1/3 EntryNormal ""]
> delivering messages
1->2 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/2 Commit:2 Entries:[1/3 EntryNormal ""]
> delivering messages
1->3 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/2 Commit:2 Entries:[1/3 EntryNormal ""]
> 2 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
Lead:1 State:StateFollower
Entries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
2->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
> 3 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=true:
Lead:1 State:StateFollower
Entries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
3->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
> delivering messages
2->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
3->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
> 1 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=false:
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:3
CommittedEntries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
1->2 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/3 Commit:3
1->3 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/3 Commit:3
> delivering messages
1->2 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/3 Commit:3
> delivering messages
1->3 MsgApp Term:1 Log:1/3 Commit:3
> 2 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=false:
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:3
CommittedEntries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
2->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
> 3 handling Ready
Ready MustSync=false:
HardState Term:1 Vote:1 Commit:3
CommittedEntries:
1/3 EntryNormal ""
Messages:
3->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
> delivering messages
2->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3
3->1 MsgAppResp Term:1 Log:0/3