Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A764200D0E for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:41:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 994361609C6; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id CF5941609C4 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 75491 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2017 22:41:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 75479 invoked by uid 99); 11 Sep 2017 22:41:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C8910CD43C for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.002 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6QTbVFrmdI9a for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1A5195FCB9 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 79DABE09A5 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id A77972416A for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Mano Kovacs (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-10912) Adding automatic patch validation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:41:05 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10912?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16162164#comment-16162164 ] Mano Kovacs commented on SOLR-10912: ------------------------------------ The latest test-patch only tested the three module was changed (either my intentional error was not placed correctly, or we need more tests there). bq. A change in solr-core shouldn't need to re-run the solrj unit tests, but a solrj change would benefit from running the solr unit tests. Yeah, solr depends on solrj, so the direction is correct. It is matter of view to say that a module's API should be validated through it's unittests or the tests of other modules depending on it (in this case solr->solrj). But for start, if that won't cause too much load on the jenkins, we can tests rather more than less. Could we define all the transitive triggers for unittest between modules? * solrj->solr-core * lucene->solr? Any other? > Adding automatic patch validation > --------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-10912 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10912 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) > Components: Build > Reporter: Mano Kovacs > Attachments: SOLR-10912.sample-patch.patch, SOLR-10912.solj-contrib-facet-error.patch > > > Proposing introduction of automated patch validation, similar what Hadoop or other Apache projects are using (see link). This would ensure that every patch passes a certain set of criterions before getting approved. It would save time for developer (faster feedback loop), save time for committers (less step to do manually), and would increase quality. > Hadoop is currently using Apache Yetus to run validations, which seems to be a good direction to start. This jira could be the board of discussing the preferred solution. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org