hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: unit tests improvement
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:56:25 GMT
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <nkeywal@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 2) HBASE-4737 is for the split; as discussed two weeks ago. There is a
> > > split proposal. I will apply this split this week-end or monday, don't
> > > hesitate to provide a feedback before (or after if necessary :-). I
> > tested
> > > the parallelization within surefire for the small tests, it seems to
> work
> > > quite well.
> > >
> > > Don't forget that the idea is to run only small & medium on the
> developer
> > > machine by default. This will make the sub-tests-suite runs under 30
> > > minutes, but the selection is important if we don't want to kill the
> > > pre-patch machine with defects that could have been detected before.
> > >
> >
> > You thinking patch-build should not run the full suite?
> >
> >
> I was thinking about the hbase-book, chapter "13.7 submitting patch". Today
> it says; " Make sure unit tests pass locally before submitting the patch.".
> It could become something as: "Make sure unit tests pass locally before
> submitting the patch. For large or risky patches, run as well the
> integration/large tests suite before submitting".
>

+1

We might want to qualify 'large' as spanning X classes (4+?) so people have
something to go by. However, this doesn't need to be a hard and fast rule
as jenkins should be running the entire suite.

-- 
-------------------
Jesse Yates
240-888-2200
@jesse_yates

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