accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Separation of timing/performance tests from normal Maven build
Date Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:10:58 GMT
Late, but +1

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com> wrote:
> +1 annotate categories
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> 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
>>

Mime
View raw message