db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Satheesh Bandaram (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1116) Define a minimal acceptance test suite for checkins
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:52:58 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116?page=comments#action_12370875 ] 

Satheesh Bandaram commented on DERBY-1116:
------------------------------------------

I am not sure picking fastest tests is the way to go for derbymats. May be we could look for
tests that actually cought issues in the past as good candidates and also based on perceived
value of a test. This may be harder to do than based on automatic process, but if derbymats
are not going to catch issues, it may "block" others who do run derbyAll.

With so many new contributors and so many new changes going in these days, I am little nervous
that we are trying to prune down minimum tests needed to checkin. I wonder if effort could
be placed else where, like making tests run faster by removing database creation etc. Even
with everyone running derbyAll, we have so many failures these days..

> Define a minimal acceptance test suite for checkins
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-1116
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Improvement
>   Components: Test
>     Reporter: David Van Couvering
>     Priority: Minor

>
> Now that we have an excellent notification system for tinderbox/nightly regression failures,
I would like to suggest that we reduce the size of the test suite being run prior to checkin.
  I am not sure what should be in such a minimal test, but in particular I would like to remove
things such as the stress test and generally reduce the number of tests being run for each
subsystem/area of code.
> As an example of how derbyall currently affects my productivity, I was running derbyall
on my machine starting at 2pm, and by evening it was still running.  At 9pm my machine was
accidentally powered down, and this morning I am restarting the test run.
> I have been tempted (and acted on such temptation) in the past to run a smaller set of
tests, only to find out that I have blocked others who are running derbyall prior to checkin.
 For this reason, we need to define a minimal acceptance test (MATS) that we all agree to
run prior to checkin.
> One could argue that you can run your tests on another machine and thus reduce productivity,
but we can't assume everybody in the community has nice big test servers to run their tests
on.
> If there are no objections, I can take a first pass at defining what this test suite
should look like, but I suspect many others in the community have strong opinions about this
and may even wish to volunteer to do this definition themselves (for example, some of you
who may be working in the QA division in some of our Big Companies :) ).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message