db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Running derbyall before submitting patches
Date Thu, 26 May 2005 19:08:28 GMT
me too.  I run derbyALL for any thing I submit myself, but as
satheesh has said lately I have not been able to run derbyAll for
all the patches I have been committing for others.  I do a full
rebuild, review the change and
run tests that look specific to the patch, and count on the submitter
to have run all tests.  Also please check the results posted to
the list the day after your patch goes in, to see if you may have
introduced a problem in a different environment.

Remember that there are now a lot of developers out there depending
on clean test runs, so they can figure out what affect their changes
are having.

Satheesh Bandaram wrote:

> +10, if there is anything like that. :-)
> I used to run 'derbyAll' for each patch I tried to commit, but not able
> to do that anymore with so many patches being submitted these days. It
> should be everyone's responsibility to run all tests before submitting a
> patch. I will start asking for list of tests run before committing
> patches, if not provided already.
> Also, new people tend to miss updating multiple versions of master
> files, if the test has different masters. (say for DerbyNet or
> DerbyNetClient frameworks) It is also possible to have different master
> files based on JVM being used or version.
> Satheesh
> Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>The last week or two, derbyall has failed a lot the time. This makes
>>it hard to verify that I haven't goofed up things when doing changes
>>in the code (I run derbyall daily as a quality measure). To be able to
>>work efficiently, many of us are dependent on a reliable test suite.
>>So, I urge everyone who submits a patch to the Derby to run derbyall
>>on at least one platform/vm and not only the "relevant" tests for the
>>patch, even if you "know" that it should not be necessary. I think
>>this would save us all a lot of work (even more time saved for the
>>committers, I guess :-).
>>I know this won't guarantee that derbyall runs correctly all the time,
>>but the frequency of problems should at least go down.

View raw message