cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "J. D. Jordan" <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Failing tests 2016-08-15 [cassandra-3.9]
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:02:19 GMT
+1 for one email.

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmckenzie@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Assuming we're single digit failures combined between the two, I think a
> single test failure email would be manageable.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Joel Knighton <joel.knighton@datastax.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> ===================================================
>> testall: 1 failure
>>  org.apache.cassandra.io.compress
>>  .CompressedRandomAccessReaderTest.testDataCorruptionDetection
>>    New flaky failure. I've opened CASSANDRA-12465 and assigned
>>    myself.
>> 
>> ===================================================
>> dtest: All passed!
>> 
>> ===================================================
>> novnode: All passed!
>> 
>> ===================================================
>> upgrade: 3 failures
>>  upgrade_tests.cql_tests
>>  .TestCQLNodes2RF1_Upgrade_current_3_0_x_To_indev_3_x
>>  .map_keys_indexing_test
>>    CASSANDRA-12192. Tyler Hobbs as assignee. They have identified
>>    the cause and proposed a test fix. They are also investigating a C*
>>    change here to improve robustness.
>>  upgrade_tests.cql_tests
>>  .TestCQLNodes3RF3_Upgrade_current_3_x_To_indev_3_x
>>  .map_keys_indexing_test
>>    Same as above.
>>  upgrade_tests.paging_test
>>  .TestPagingDataNodes2RF1_Upgrade_current_2_2_x_To_indev_3_x
>>  .static_columns_paging_test
>>    Potentially CASSANDRA-11195, which is open with no clear
>>    progress.  I'll follow up with those on that issue tomorrow and see if
>>    they agree that this is the same problem.
>> 
>> ===================================================
>> Overall, the testing situation continues to look better. The massive
>> upgrade failures seem to have subsided, so we can continue to target
>> individual failures.
>> 
>> Since the 3.9 tests are getting to a manageable level, we should focus
>> on managing test failures on trunk as well. I will soon start tracking
>> these failures, as well as failures on the large dtest runs, which consist
>> of tests that have been segmented off due to increased cluster size.
>> 
>> On months that we're maintaining a 3.x bugfix branch as well as trunk,
>> is there any preference toward a single email or a separate email for
>> each branch?  Any other feedback is welcome, as always.
>> 

Mime
View raw message