And who knows how many more are lurking? I think that's the issue exposed by this post -- if these really basic things are broken, why would anyone believe that the actual tricky stuff has been tested?
Interesting. Care to comment on why you think the issues brought up in this blog post weren't covered by your test cases? To me they seem to be approximately the first thing you would test with any transaction feature, but I don't work on a mutable datastore, so maybe I have a misapprehension of the situation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I see something I think should obviously be tested not tested, my go-to assumption is that the failure was in bad testing practices. To dispel that belief, I need something to replace it with that explains the observation even better. If you're willing to share your view of the situation, maybe that would do it. (There's no real business case for you to do it, since I'm not in your market. But as a hacker, I'm interested in what I can learn from this.)
> I think that's the issue exposed by this post -- if these really basic things are broken, why would anyone believe that the actual tricky stuff has been tested?
So, I think it is relevant that LWT is still a very new feature in Cassandra and not something basic to it at all (arguably counter to a lot of its original design goals).
Personally, I was much more concerned by the server side timestamps only using millisecond granularity (and even that is somewhat understandable given the JVM's limitations).
