ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Александр Меньшиков <sharple...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Test failures
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:50:58 GMT
+1 to Aleksey, Alexander and Vyacheslav.

I suppose that the best option is make issue for every master-failed-test.
And fix them all.

Floating tests should be normal. I think in most case we can just add
repeating.

All new test for some not ready future should be marked like "Should be fix
in IGNITE-9999".


2017-02-08 15:23 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>:

> I vote for the master-branche without failed-tests)
>
> I understand that impossible to make it quickly.
>
> We shall aim at this approach.
>
> It will be more comfortable to us to develop.
>
> 2017-02-08 12:17 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would agree with Aleksey.
> > From the CI perspective, failing tests should be the main concern,
> because
> > it prevents a durable development of new features. Also, as Aleksey has
> > noted, developers working on different features could end up fixing the
> > same regressions, chances are - in different ways, resulting in merge
> > conflicts.
> > Having failing base branch, it is not possible to determine the reason
> of a
> > failure from the first sight.
> > All these points impact as the feedback from tests, so the whole process
> > agility.
> > Ideally, no new feature development should be started based on the
> failing
> > branch.
> > I think we should adopt this approach, otherwise, with growing amount of
> > features,
> > we will eventually end up spending more time dealing with regressions,
> than
> > developing features.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alexander
> >
> > 8 февр. 2017 г. 10:50 AM пользователь "ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV" <
> > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com> написал:
> >
> > How could they co-exist ? When you developing some ticket you are risking
> > introduce bug which is reproduced by already failed test(s).
> > Moreover its time consuming to look up new failed tests when your build
> has
> > completed.
> > The last one, committers who introduced new bugs is responsible for them
> > and have to fix them, not other ones.
> > There are number of tests which i have to execute to ensure they are
> flaky
> > or permanently failed. For example this one :
> > CacheJdbcPojoStoreTest.testLoadCache()
> >
> >
> >
> > вт, 7 февр. 2017 г. в 22:10, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > Bugs fixing and features development are two processes that usually
> > > co-exist.
> > >
> > > Some of the committer/contributors fix tests/functionality while the
> > > others add new functionality. Someone does both.
> > >
> > > You’re welcomed to start fixing the failing tests. Are there any
> specific
> > > that annoys you most?
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:40 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have a lot of failed tests, which is frustrating. Some of them are
> > > > flaky(floating status randomly goes from succesful to failed) which
> > adds
> > > to
> > > > frustration. Perhaps, we should fix all the tests in first place, and
> > > then
> > > > continue doing tickets ?
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > >
> > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>

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