accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Separation of timing/performance tests from normal Maven build
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:42:07 GMT
Great, consensus enough for me. I'll open an issue on JIRA and sketch 
out an outline of how to approach it.

Thanks, all!

Eric Newton wrote:
> +1 this is worth doing.  I don't know how, though. Yet.
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mike Drob<>  wrote:
>> +1 annotate categories
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser<>  wrote:
>>> Was talking with Eric off-list about a recent test he added.
>>> Over the past two major release lines (1.6 and 1.7), there's been a
>>> significant level of effort put forth by multiple devs to get the
>>> integration tests running on "terrible" hardware. This has been a great
>>> endeavor because our tests have never been more stable and it's even
>> helped
>>> us catch bugs that we would have otherwise assumed as transiently failing
>>> (ACCUMULO-3859 is a great example).
>>> Because we are writing a database, we're always concerned about
>>> performance regressions, both high-level and low-level. I'd like to
>> propose
>>> that we recognize and accept this head-on and try to move these
>>> specifically "high-load" and "performance related" tests to their own
>>> execution phase that we can run specifically on nodes that meet the
>>> necessary preconditions.
>>> Some examples of tests:
>>> DeleteTableDuringSplitIT
>>> DurabilityIT
>>> ManySplitIT
>>> RollWALPerformanceIT
>>> I know we can do some classification of tests via surefire/failsafe which
>>> should roughly meet our goals (typically via an annotation on the class).
>>> Thus, we could add a specific flag to a Maven build that would include
>> this
>>> subset of tests.
>>> What do people think?  Do others also think that this is worth pursuing?
>>> - Josh

View raw message