lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: being a good citizen is hard when you can't successfully run tests....
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:45:55 GMT
I think we can even integrate hossman's suggestion and generate a stability
report like weekly or something.

I will take a look at this this week but it is definitely something that
will require everyone's consensus.

Dawid

Sent from mobile phone.
On Sep 17, 2012 2:42 PM, "Michael McCandless" <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
wrote:

> I agree that a test that frequently fails, and does not get fixed, is
> nearly pointless: everybody ignores it so it's as if the test didn't
> exist.  And so it should be disabled.
>
> I say *nearly* because the failures are in fact useful to devs who do
> have the itch/time to debug/fix them.
>
> So I think we need some middle ground here, where the tests keep
> failing but only those that are interested in the failures see the
> notifications.  We need to switch from a "push" model (any failure is
> broadcast to everybody) to a "pull" model (those devs that want to
> debug the failures go and check the logs), for such tests.
>
> When someone wants to make sure their change didn't break something
> (Erick's original use case) then these tests should not run.
>
> I like Dawid's idea (a separate test plan that Jenkins runs with these
> "difficult" tests, and it wouldn't email dev on failure).
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I get value from this test - if it was disabled, I'd probably re-enable
> it.
> >> would be great if it didn't fail so much, but the type of fail tells me
> >> something.
> >
> > That means the assert in question isnt important at all. I'll remove it.
> >
> > Again my problem is the idea that having a failing build is "ok"
> > because certain types of failures "don't matter". If they dont matter
> > they should be removed.
> >
> > It causes a ton of noise when people are lazy about tests in this way,
> > and it wastes a ton of peoples time. R
> >
> > Remember every time one of these tests fails it sends an email, that I
> > must read (we don't yet have a way to put in the subject header its a
> > SOLR test fail versus a LUCENE one, or i'd filter the solr ones and
> > not be complaining as much).
> >
> > --
> > lucidworks.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message