hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Patch testing
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:48:08 GMT
+1, thanks for doing this.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, with test-patch updated to show the failing tests, saving the
> developers the need to go and verify that the failed tests are all
> known, how do people feel about turning on test-patch again for HDFS
> and mapred?  I think it'll help prevent any more tests from entering
> the "yeah, we know" category.
>
> Thanks,
> jg
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jakob Homan <jhoman@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> > True, each patch would get a -1 and the failing tests would need to be
> > verified as those known bad (BTW, it would be great if Hudson could list
> > which tests failed in the message it posts to JIRA).  But that's still
> quite
> > a bit less error-prone work than if the developer runs the tests and
> > test-patch themselves.  Also, with 22 being cut, there are a lot of
> patches
> > up in the air and several developers are juggling multiple patches.  The
> > more automation we can have, even if it's not perfect, will decrease
> errors
> > we may make.
> > -jg
> >
> > Nigel Daley wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> It's also ready to run on MapReduce and HDFS but we won't turn it on
> >>>> until these projects build and test cleanly.  Looks like both these
> projects
> >>>> currently have test failures.
> >>>
> >>> Assuming the projects are compiling and building, is there a reason to
> >>> not turn it on despite the test failures? Hudson is invaluable to
> developers
> >>> who then don't have to run the tests and test-patch themselves.  We
> didn't
> >>> turn Hudson off when it was working previously and there were known
> >>> failures.  I think one of the reasons we have more failing tests now is
> the
> >>> higher cost of doing Hudson's work (not a great excuse I know).  This
> is
> >>> particularly true now because several of the failing tests involve
> tests
> >>> timing out, making the whole testing regime even longer.
> >>
> >> Every single patch would get a -1 and need investigation.  Currently,
> that
> >> would be about 83 investigations between MR and HDFS issues that are in
> >> patch available state.  Shouldn't we focus on getting these tests fixed
> or
> >> removed/?  Also, I need to get MAPREDUCE-2172 fixed (applies to HDFS as
> >> well) before I turn this on.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Nige
> >
> >
>



-- 
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message