maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schulte>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] How do we want to handle false positives in the integration tests
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:23:56 GMT
Before the reset I did A. On the branch I did B. Do not ask me why I did
it differently this time. Maybe because I reviewed the versions in more
detail this time. While at it: I somehow get the feeling that those ITs
really should be unit tests. I added the exact same tests to the core as
unit tests. The unit tests is what gets tagged. We maybe also should
apply an RTC style process when it comes to changing unit tests as well.
We never tag the core ITs or create release versions of them. That may
be the root cause for having to discuss things like this. If someone
adds an IT with a range of [3.2.2,) and that IT will not be supported by
3.2.2, we never notice it. Means we must be doing something wrong.

Am 01/31/17 um 22:25 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> Ok so, we'll need to knock this one out and see if there is a consensus.
> My position is that I only have a slight preference for A over B and I
> cannot fully articulate why.
> Michael, do you feel you can present a reasoned argument in favour of A and
> we'll let one of the B proponents present their case and see if either side
> is "converted" to yield a consensus.
> While we are at it, are there any in the C or D camp? Silence assumes we
> are all either A or B
> We'll probably need to vote on this once we think we have a consensus then
> :-(
> - Stephen
> On Tue 31 Jan 2017 at 20:29, Michael Osipov <> wrote:
>> Am 2017-01-31 um 20:23 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>>> Looking like a consensus on B.
>> I am actually in favor of A. How do you want to assure with B that the
>> will be properly handled for current master as you fixed the test for
>> released versions?
>> Michael
>>> On Tue 31 Jan 2017 at 12:51, Anders Hammar <> wrote:
>>>> I favor B.
>>>> /Anders
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> We have kind of established a consensus on how to handle the case where
>>>> we
>>>>> want to change the specification of how Maven works going forward.
>>>>> Specifically, if we decide that the old behaviour of Maven is no longer
>>>>> going to be the new behaviour of Maven our procedure in the integration
>>>>> tests is as follows:
>>>>> 1. Mark the existing tests that are affected as range limited where the
>>>>> upper bound is the below the version of Maven that the change in
>>>> behaviour
>>>>> will land in
>>>>> 2. Create tests of the new behaviour (probably copied from the original
>>>>> tests but with the assertions modified and using a range limited where
>>>> the
>>>>> lower bound is the version of Maven that the change in behaviour will
>>>> land
>>>>> in.
>>>>> An example of such a change is
>>>>> c4365abe20b58b2cbc174de812e43c7741dc10e1
>>>>> We now have a more complex case to try and decide how to handle, the
>>>>> current attempt to resolve is this diff:
>>>>> compare/master...MNG-2199
>>>>> However I am somewhat uncomfortable with how that proposed fix to the
>>>>> integration tests works.
>>>>> So firstly, Christian has identified that the original tests added were
>>>> not
>>>>> correctly detecting the failure.
>>>>> We have a situation therefore where the integration tests have been
>>>> giving
>>>>> false positive results against Maven 3.2.2+
>>>>> Therefore, my view is that we should *fix the broken tests* because a
>>>> false
>>>>> positive or a false negative is a bug in the tests.
>>>>> This would mean that the tests would no longer pass when run against
>>>>> 3.2.2-3.3.9, instead they would report the bugs in those versions that
>> we
>>>>> shipped due to the bugs in the integration tests.
>>>>> If we had a need to release - say security fixes - for those lines, we
>>>>> would then have to do one of:
>>>>> * ACK the continued failing tests;
>>>>> * Run with the integration tests forked from the point in time where
>> the
>>>>> previous release on the line was cut; OR
>>>>> * Back-port the fixes to those lines
>>>>> (assuming we are supporting those lines for security fixes)
>>>>> I am fine with any of those three options as those are known issues
>> that
>>>> we
>>>>> should really have JIRAs for and be documenting in the release notes,
>> and
>>>>> any of those three options would be forcing us to acknowledge the bugs.
>>>>> An alternative is to say "those bugs were part of the specification of
>>>>> Maven and we have changed the specification of Maven again" which is
>> the
>>>>> approach that the current MNG-2199 branch takes.
>>>>> I am not happy with that approach as it is an implicit approval of that
>>>>> type of usage for the broken versions of Maven. Users could
>> legitimately
>>>>> start filing feature requests to "restore" the previous behaviour
>> because
>>>>> "it was part of the specification"... fine we can probably bat those
>>>>> requests away, but is it helping us with code archeology?
>>>>> So, what do we want to do with the case of a test being identified as
>>>>> having either a false positive or a false negative against an already
>>>>> released version of Maven?
>>>>> A. Fix the test and then the test will fail against already released
>>>>> versions of Maven
>>>>> B. Fix the test, but exclude the broken versions of Maven from the
>> range
>>>>> with a comment explaining why
>>>>> C. Clone the test, leaving the broken test for the old versions of
>> Maven
>>>>> and the new test for new versions of Maven
>>>>> D. Something else
>>>>> I personally favour A or B (with a slight leaning towards A) and I
>> really
>>>>> do not like C for the case of the false-positive / false-negative tests
>>>>> If an obvious consensus does not emerge I may have to call a vote, you
>>>> have
>>>>> been warned!
>>>>> -Stephen
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> --
> Sent from my phone

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message