mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PR validation and runtime of CI
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2018 22:59:34 GMT
-1 for moving to nightly. I think that would be detrimental.

We have to make our CI a little more smart and only build required
components and not build all components to reduce cost and the time it
takes to run CI. A Scala build need not build everything and run tests
related to Python, etc.,

Thanks, Naveen

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> Thanks a lot for our input, Thomas! You are right, 3h are only hit if
> somebody makes changes in their Dockerfiles and thus every node has to
> rebuild their containers - but this is expected and inevitable.
>
> So far there have not been any big attempts to resolve the number of flaky
> tests. We had a few people fixing some tests (and that's very
> appreciated!!!), but it feels like we're introducing more than we can fix.
> I'd definitely love a flaky-test-bash-week and proposed it a few times, but
> there was no success so far unfortunately.
>
> We will definitely not drop any platforms. What we will probably do after
> the nightly tests are in place, is move some things like CentOS or
> overlapping Python2/Python3 tests to nightly. We don't need to test python2
> and python3 compatibility half a dozen times on different platforms for
> every commit.
>
> I've been thinking about merging the integration and unit test state and
> I'm pretty tempted to do it. My only concern so far was the increased cost.
> I expect the nightly tests to be in place in about 2 weeks. I'd propose we
> wait until then and then revisit which runs are actually required for every
> PR and which ones can be moved. During that process, we will probably
> consolidate a lot of tests and put them into one stage.
>
> But I agree, past has shown that disabling tests did only mask the problem
> and won't get them fixed. Also, quite a lot of failures have proven to be
> actual bugs in our code. So from a customer perspective, we should actually
> give these failures a high priority. I hope they will get into the
> spotlight after I provide the proper statistics.
>
> -Marco
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 6:35 PM Thomas DELTEIL <thomas.delteil1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing the issue of CI stability!
> >
> > However I disagree with some points in this thread:
> >
> > - "We are at approximately 3h for a full successful run."
> > => Looking at Jenkins I see the last successful runs oscillating between
> > 1h53 and 2h42 with a mean that seems to be at 2h20. Or are you talking
> > about something different than the jenkins CI run?
> >
> > - "For this I propose working towards moving tests from CI to nightly,
> > specially
> > the ones that take most time or do black box testing with full training
> of
> > models. And addressing flaky tests by either fixing them or *disabling
> > them." *
> > => Is there any evidence that some serious effort has been spent trying
> to
> > fix the flaky tests? I know Sheng and Marco have worked to consolidating
> a
> > list of Flaky tests, but I think simply disabling tests will just make
> the
> > platform weaker. Let's organize a flaky test week where we each take on a
> > couple of these flaky tests and hopefully we should make good progress
> > towards stabilizing the CI.
> >
> > -"I'd like to disable flaky tests until they're fixed."
> > => Wishful thinking IMO, we know this never happens, if we can't make
> time
> > now to fix them, we'll never go back and fix them.
> >
> > "I would want a turnaround time of less than 30 minutes and 0% failure
> rate
> > on master."
> >  => With current timing, this means barely finishing the build step. Do
> we
> > propose dropping some platforms for building?
> >
> > I agree with some points:
> >
> > "Won't we end up in the same situation with so many flaky tests?" =>
> pretty
> > sure it will
> > "This could be set to 100% for nightly, for example."[for the release] =>
> > That would be a given to me
> > "I'm also currently working on a system that tracks all test failures, so
> > this will also cover nightly tests. This will give us actionable data "
> =>
> > Awesome, that would be great to have data on that to help prioritize what
> > to fix!
> >
> > I personally think if we disable most tests and move them to nightly
> tests,
> > we will decrease the trust and stability of the platform and it leaves
> the
> > door open to conflicting changes creating hard to debug failures. I think
> > the biggest potential win here is reducing test flakiness. That's the one
> > that is killing the productivity, we can redesign the test pipeline to
> run
> > integration and unit test in parallel and that would give us straight
> away
> > a 30 minutes reduced time in the CI run. Then we'd be always at <2h for a
> > build, which seems reasonable if it never fails for no reason.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > 2018-06-07 8:27 GMT-07:00 Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>:
> >
> > > Yeah, I think we are at the point at which we have to disable tests..
> > >
> > > If a test fails in nightly, the commit would not be reverted since it's
> > > hard to pin a failure to a specific PR. We will have reporting for
> > failures
> > > on nightly (they have proven to be stable, so we can enable it right
> from
> > > the beginning). I'm also currently working on a system that tracks all
> > test
> > > failures, so this will also cover nightly tests. This will give us
> > > actionable data which allows us to define acceptance criteria for a
> > > release. E.g. if the test success rate is below X%, a release can not
> be
> > > made. This could be set to 100% for nightly, for example.
> > >
> > > It would definitely be good if we could determine which tests are
> > required
> > > to run and which ones are unnecessary. I don't really like the flag in
> > the
> > > comment (and also it's hard to integrate). A good idea would be some
> > > analytics on the changed file content. If we have this data, we could
> > > easily enable and disable different jobs. Since this behaviour is
> > entirely
> > > defined in GitHub, I'd like to invite everybody to submit a PR.
> > >
> > > -Marco
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:20 PM Aaron Markham <
> aaron.s.markham@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to disable flaky tests until they're fixed.
> > > > What would the process be for fixing a failure if the tests are done
> > > > nightly? Would the commit be reverted? Won't we end up in the same
> > > > situation with so many flaky tests?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to see if we can separate the test pipelines based on the
> > > content
> > > > of the commit. I think that md, html, and js updates should fly
> through
> > > and
> > > > not have to go through GPU tests.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe some special flag added to the comment?
> > > > Is this possible?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Pedro Larroy <
> > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Team
> > > > >
> > > > > The time to validate a PR is growing, due to our number of
> supported
> > > > > platforms and increased time spent in testing and running models.
> We
> > > are
> > > > > at approximately 3h for a full successful run.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is compounded with the failure rate of builds due to flaky
> tests
> > > of
> > > > > more than 50% which is a big drag in developer productivity if you
> > can
> > > > only
> > > > > get one or two CI runs to a change per day.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would want a turnaround time of less than 30 minutes and 0%
> failure
> > > > rate
> > > > > on master.
> > > > >
> > > > > For this I propose working towards moving tests from CI to nightly,
> > > > > specially the ones that take most time or do black box testing with
> > > full
> > > > > training of models. And addressing flaky tests by either fixing
> them
> > or
> > > > > disabling them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to check if there's consensus on this previous plan
so
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > aligned on pursuing this common goal as a shared effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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