cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
Subject Re: Known trillian test failures
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:18:36 GMT
While cleaning up the tests is there any value in splitting out tests 
that are redundant
- test that test low level functions whose failures will be picked up in 
other tests of higher level functions
- tests that are run on modules that "never" change.

The lower level test may still be useful for testing a change to a low 
level function or for tracking down a failure in a higher level function 
that uses a low level routine but may not add much value to a test suite 
that is run frequently.

Would this reduce the amount of time taken to do a full test at the 
expense of some increased risk that an edge case might be missed?
Would setting aside the clutter allow the team to focus on the tests 
that really matter?

Ron

On 20/12/2017 1:21 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Hi Marc-Aurèle, (and everyone else)
>
> The title probably is slightly incorrect.  It should really say known Marvin test failures.
 Trillian is the automation that creates the environments to run the tests in, the tests are
purely those that are in Marvin codebase so anyone can repeat them.  In fact we would like
to see other people running the tests in their environments and comparing the results.
>
> With regard to the failing tests, I agree, that it would be dangerous to hide failures.
> I would like to see however, a matrix of known good and known bad tests, and any PR that
then fails known good tests has a problem.
> With a visible list of known bad tests we can 'not fail' a PR due to failing a bad test,
and also there would be a list of bad tests which the community can attack and whittle down
the list until all tests *should* pass.
>
> That way we can make clear (automated) decisions on pass/fail.  Rather than get a list
of pass/fails that we then have to interpret.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>    
>   
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc-Aurèle Brothier [mailto:marco@exoscale.ch]
> Sent: 20 December 2017 12:56
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Known trillian test failures
>
> @rhtyd
>
> Could something be done to avoid confusing people pushing PR to have trillian test failures,
which apparently are know to fail all the time or often? I know it's hard to keep the tests
in good shape and make them run smoothly but I find it very disturbing and therefore I have
to admit I'm not paying attention to those outputs, sadly.
>
> Skipping them adds the high risk of never getting fixed... I would hope that someone
having full access the the management & agent's logs could fix them, since AFAIK they
aren't available.
>
> Cheers


-- 
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102


Mime
View raw message