activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Releases and Testing
Date Sun, 01 Feb 2015 17:44:53 GMT
Please look at my post regarding the testsuite. Why you guys don't contribute effort towards
activemq-6 branch ? There's an ongoing effort there.

-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone. 

> On Feb 1, 2015, at 12:34, Jamie G. <> wrote:
> The choice to fix, refactor, or remove test cases should be reasonably
> straight forward on a case by case basis - the real challenge in my
> mind is the volume to be reviewed.
> Perhaps the AMQ community could parcel the test cases into small sets,
> each tracked by a Jira task. These sets could then be posted into a
> community page tracking, showing which ones have been reviewed, which
> are under review, and which ones have not been touched.
> The reason I'd like to see a table tracking these test case set
> reviews is that it would provide new contributors an easy way to see
> where they could jump in and help out -- much like the old Servicemix
> community wish page (That's how I was able to jump in and start
> helping effectively back in the day). Many hands making the work
> light.
> The over head of having the tracking table, Jiras, and co-ordination
> should be offset by having the work spread well over many people, and
> providing new contributors a great way to start interacting with the
> community.
> Cheers,
> Jamie
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:03 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>> *Overview*
>> Defining a consistent approach to tests for releases will help us both
>> near-term and long-term come to agreement on (a) how to maintain quality
>> releases, and (b) how to improve the tests in a way that serves the needs of
>> releases.
>> As a general practice, tests that are unreliable raise a major question -
>> just how valuable are the tests?  With enough unreliable tests, can we ever
>> expect a single build to complete successfully?
>> How can we ensure the quality of ActiveMQ is maintained, and tests are
>> safeguarding the solution from the introduction of bugs, in light of these
>> tests?
>> *Ideally*
>> Putting some ideals here so we have the "end in mind" (Stephen Covey) --
>> i.e. so they can help us move in the right direction overall.  These are
>> definitely not feasible within any reasonable timeframe.
>> Putting on my "purist" hat -- ideally, we would analyze every test to
>> determine the possibility of FALSE-NEGATIVES *and* FALSE-POSITIVES generated
>> by the test.  From there, it would be possible to look for methods of
>> distinguishing false-negatives and false-positives (for example, by
>> reviewing logs) and improving the tests so they hopefully never end in false
>> results.
>> Another ideal approach - return to the drawing board and define all of the
>> test scenarios needed to ensure ActiveMQ operates properly, then determine
>> the most reliable way to cover those test scenarios.  Discard redundant
>> tests and replace unreliable ones with reliable ones.
>> *Approach for Releases*
>> Back to the focus of this thread - let's define an acceptable approach to
>> the release.  Here is an idea to get the discussion started:
>> - Run the build with the Maven "-fn" flag (fail-none), then review all
>> failed tests and determine a course of action for each:
>>  - Re-run the test if there is reason (preferably a clear, documented
>> reason) to believe the failure was a false-negative (e.g. a test that
>> times-out too aggressively)
>>  - Declare the failure a bug (or at least, a suspected bug), create a Jira
>> entry, and resolve
>>  - Replace the test with a more reliable alternative that addresses the
>> same underlying concern as the original test
>> *Call for Feedback*
>> To move this discussion forward, please provide as much negative feedback as
>> necessary and, at the same time, please provide reasoning or ideas that can
>> help move things forward.  Criticism (unactionable feedback) is discouraging
>> and unwelcome.  On a similar note - the practice of throwing out "-1" votes,
>> even for small, easily-addressed issues, without any offer to assist is
>> getting old.  I dream of seeing "-1, file <x> needs an update; I'll take
>> care of that myself right now."
>> *Wrap-Up*
>> Let's get this solved, continue with frequent releases, and then move
>> forward in improving ActiveMQ and enjoying the results!
>> Expect another thread soon with ideas on improving the tests in general.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message