Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <1638311747.1142461858872.JavaMail.jira@ajax>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:30:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David Van Couvering (JIRA)" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1116) Define a minimal acceptance test
 suite for checkins
In-Reply-To: <1287073227.1142445538304.JavaMail.jira@ajax>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116?page=comments#action_12370587 ] 

David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1116:
--------------------------------------------

Submitted client-side test, revision 386187.  Derbyall passed except for wisconsin.sql, which looks completely unrelated

> 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