hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Patch testing
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:25:44 GMT
Doh.  Forgot to include a shout-out to Nigel for adding the
failing-tests-list to test-patch. Thanks!

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1
> I think all the known failing tests should block the release as well.
> Thanks,
> Eli
> 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
>>>>>> until these projects build and test cleanly.  Looks like both these
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> removed/?  Also, I need to get MAPREDUCE-2172 fixed (applies to HDFS as
>>>> well) before I turn this on.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nige

View raw message