db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1116) Define a minimal acceptance test suite for checkins
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:50:58 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116?page=comments#action_12370873 ] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-1116:
--------------------------------------

At the end of the day, we want to end up with a basket of tests which 1) covers Derby features
and 2) doesn't take too long to run. I think your heuristic makes it easy to deliver on (2)
but I'm not convinced it will do a very thorough job for (1). Handling (1) involves more analysis.
Maybe you could run the code coverage tool and try to end up with a basket of tests which
has similar code coverage results as the full derbyall run.

Again, however you pick the initial basket of tests, it's worth revising this basket as tinderbox
failures disclose which excluded tests are actually catching real problems. We can add them
back in and remove lower value tests from the basket.

> 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