Also, add more misc details to the 'react' breadcrumb trail. Also,
save get(react) results into dbg2 whenever we write a private projection,
very valuable for debugging.
Also: cleanup PULSE code, add regression commands as option and
controls with some new environment variables. These regression
sequences were responsbile for several fruitful debugging sessions,
so we keep them for posterity and for their ability (with new seeds
and PULSE) to find new interleavings.
So, the PULSE test is failing, which is good. However, I believe
that the failures are all due to the model now being *too strict*.
The model is now catching failures which are now benign, I think.
{bummer_NOT_DISJOINT,{[a,b,b,c,d],
[{a,not_in_this_epoch},
{b,not_in_this_epoch},
{c,"[{epoch,1546},{author,c},{upi,[c]},{repair,[b]},{down,[a,d]},{d,[{ps,[{a,c},{c,a},{a,d},{b,d},{c,d}]},{nodes_up,[b,c]}]},{d2,[]}]"},
{d,"[{epoch,1546},{author,d},{upi,[d]},{repair,[a,b]},{down,[c]},{d,[{ps,[{c,b},{d,c}]},{nodes_up,[a,b,d]}]},{d2,[]}]"}]}}},
In this and all other examples, the UPIs are disjoint but the
repairs are not disjoint. I believe the model ought to be
ignoring the repair list.
{bummer_NOT_DISJOINT,{[a,a,b],
[{a,"[{epoch,1174},{author,a},{upi,[a]},{repair,[]},{down,[b]},{d,[{ps,[{a,b},{b,a}]},{nodes_up,[a]}]},{d2,[]}]"},
{b,"[{epoch,1174},{author,b},{upi,[b]},{repair,[a]},{down,[]},{d,[{ps,[]},{nodes_up,[a,b]}]},{d2,[]}]"}]}}},
or
{bummer_NOT_DISJOINT,{[c,c,e],
[{a,not_in_this_epoch},
{b,not_in_this_epoch},
{c,"[{epoch,1388},{author,c},{upi,[c]},{repair,[]},{down,[a,b,d,e]},{d,[{ps,[{a,b},{a,c},{c,a},{a,d},{d,a},{e,a},{c,b},{b,e},{e,b},{c,d},{e,c},{e,d}]},{nodes_up,[c]}]},{d2,[]}]"},
{d,not_in_this_epoch},
{e,"[{epoch,1388},{author,e},{upi,[e]},{repair,[c]},{down,[a,b,d]},{d,[{ps,[{a,b},{b,a},{a,c},{c,a},{a,d},{d,a},{a,e},{e,a},{b,c},{c,b},{b,d},{b,e},{e,b},{c,d},{d,c},{d,e},{e,d}]},{nodes_up,[c,e]}]},{d2,[]}]"}]}}},
The prior commit wasn't sufficient: the range of transitions is wider than
assumed by that commit. So, we take one of two options, with a TODO task
of researching the other option.
Fix for today: We are going to game the system. We know that
C100 is going to be checking authorship relative to P_current's
UPI's tail. Therefore, we're just going to set it here.
Why??? Because we have been using this projection safely for
the entire flapping period! ... The only other way I see is to
allow C100 to carve out an exception if the repair finished
PLUS author_server check fails PLUS if we came from here, but
that feels a bit fragile to me: if some code factoring happens
in projection_transition_is_saneprojection_transition_is_sane()
or elsewhere that causes the author_server check to be
something-other-than-the-final-thing-checked, then such a
refactoring would likely cause an even harder bug to find &
fix. Conditions tested: 5 FLUs plus alternating partitions of:
[
[{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [],
[{b,a},{d,e}],
[{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], [], [{a,b}], []
].
%% We have a small problem for state transition sanity checking in the
%% case where we are flapping *and* a repair has finished. One of the
%% sanity checks in simple_chain_state_transition_is_sane(() is that
%% the author of P2 in this case must be the tail of P1's UPI: i.e.,
%% it's the tail's responsibility to perform repair, therefore the tail
%% must damn well be the author of any transition that says a repair
%% finished successfully.
%%
%% The problem is that author_server of the inner projection does not
%% reflect the actual author! See the comment with the text
%% "The inner projection will have a fake author" in
%react_to_env_A30().
%%
%% So, there's a special return value that tells us to try to check for
%% the correct authorship here.
Ha, famous last words, amirite?
%% The chain sequence/order checks at the bottom of this function aren't
%% as easy-to-read as they ought to be. However, I'm moderately confident
%% that it isn't buggy. TODO: refactor them for clarity.
So, now machi_chain_manager1:projection_transition_is_sane() is using
newer, far less buggy code to make sanity decisions.
TODO: Add support for Retrospective mode. TODO is it really needed?
Examples of how the old code sucks and the new code sucks less.
138> eqc:quickcheck(eqc:testing_time(10, machi_chain_manager1_test:prop_compare_legacy_with_v2_chain_transition_check(whole))).
xxxxxxxxxxxx..x.xxxxxx..x.x....x..xx........................................................Failed! After 69 tests.
[a,b,c]
{c,[a,b,c],[c,b],b,[b,a],[b,a,c]}
Old_res ([335,192,166,160,153,139]): true
New_res: false (why line [1936])
Shrinking xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(3 times)
[a,b,c]
%% {Author1,UPI1, Repair1,Author2,UPI2, Repair2} %%
{c, [a,b,c],[], a, [b,a],[]}
Old_res ([338,185,160,153,147]): true
New_res: false (why line [1936])
false
Old code is wrong: we've swapped order of a & b, which is bad.
139> eqc:quickcheck(eqc:testing_time(10, machi_chain_manager1_test:prop_compare_legacy_with_v2_chain_transition_check(whole))).
xxxxxxxxxx..x...xx..........xxx..x..............x......x............................................(x10)...(x1)........Failed! After 120 tests.
[b,c,a]
{c,[c,a],[c],a,[a,b],[b,a]}
Old_res ([335,192,185,160,153,123]): true
New_res: false (why line [1936])
Shrinking xx.xxxxxx.x.xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx(4 times)
[b,a,c]
%% {Author1,UPI1,Repair1,Author2,UPI2, Repair2} %%
{a, [c], [], c, [c,b],[]}
Old_res ([338,185,160,153,147]): true
New_res: false (why line [1936])
false
Old code is wrong: b wasn't repairing in the previous state.
150> eqc:quickcheck(eqc:testing_time(10, machi_chain_manager1_test:prop_compare_legacy_with_v2_chain_transition_check(whole))).
xxxxxxxxxxx....x...xxxxx..xx.....x.......xxx..x.......xxx...................x................x......(x10).....(x1)........xFailed! After 130 tests.
[c,a,b]
{b,[c],[b,a,c],c,[c,a,b],[b]}
Old_res ([335,214,185,160,153,147]): true
New_res: false (why line [1936])
Shrinking xxxx.x.xxx.xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx(4 times)
[c,b,a]
%% {Author1,UPI1,Repair1,Author2,UPI2, Repair2} %%
{c, [c], [a,b], c, [c,b,a],[]}
Old_res ([335,328,185,160,153,111]): true
New_res: false (why line [1981,1679])
false
Old code is wrong: a & b were repairing but UPI2 has a & b in the wrong order.
%% Demo/exploratory hackery to check relative speeds of dealing with
%% checksum data in different ways.
%%
%% Summary:
%%
%% * Use compact binary encoding, with 1 byte header for entry length.
%% * Because the hex-style code is *far* slower just for enc & dec ops.
%% * For 1M entries of enc+dec: 0.215 sec vs. 15.5 sec.
%% * File sorter when sorting binaries as-is is only 30-40% slower
%% than an in-memory split (of huge binary emulated by file:read_file()
%% "big slurp") and sort of the same as-is sortable binaries.
%% * File sorter slows by a factor of about 2.5 if {order, fun compare/2}
%% function must be used, i.e. because the checksum entry lengths differ.
%% * File sorter + {order, fun compare/2} is still *far* faster than external
%% sort by OS X's sort(1) of sortable ASCII hex-style:
%% 4.5 sec vs. 21 sec.
%% * File sorter {order, fun compare/2} is faster than in-memory sort
%% of order-friendly 3-tuple-style: 4.5 sec vs. 15 sec.
