phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] PHOENIX-4863: Setup Travis-CI & CodeCoverage
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:55:49 GMT
I'm -0 (as the Apache voting page defines it -- "I won't get in the way,
but I'd rather we didn't do this") because of the stated limitation to unit
tests only. The bulk of our testing is currently through IT tests, so as a
committer I wouldn't have sufficient confidence to commit a patch based
solely on the knowledge that code built and unit tests were passing. It
also seems confusing for contributors to have a test run which is
misleading when green.

I'd be +1 to a solution that incorporated our full test runs including IT
tests into GitHub PRs. If there are multiple paths to get there, then all
things being equal I'd prefer to use Apache infrastructure.

Geoffrey

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:35 AM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> I am -0.
>
> I don't see value in trying to integrate with an external CI system when
> we already have the ASF Jenkins that gives us more insight than just
> about any other system will give us.
>
> Integrating PreCommit jobs with Github is a question to ASF Infra and
> copying the PreCommit job and checking a button. ZooKeeper and HBase
> have recently done this.
>
> I don't see a good reason provided to use Travis and CodeCov. Let's
> spend some time making what we already have better... HBase is pretty
> successful with their use of Yetus today.
>
> On 6/21/19 3:15 AM, Priyank Porwal wrote:
> > [Converting this thread to a community vote]
> >
> > I'd like to start Travis-CI and CodeCov integration after getting some
> > success with both on a fork in my personal account. Checkout -
> > https://github.com/priyankporwal/phoenix/pull/3
> >
> > Things to note:
> > 1. TravisCI kicked-off as soon as the PR is created and/or new commits
> are
> > pushed. No additional developer action is necessary.
> > 2. Once completed, code-coverage report is uploaded to CodeCov which
> > produced a nice color-coded graph of different folders/files. Detailed
> > reports linked from the PR as well.
> > 3. Confirmed that compilation and test failures resulted in CI flagging
> the
> > PR.
> > 4. Currently, TravisCI only runs unit-tests. "mvn verify" takes too long
> > for it to be included in Travis' scipt stage (max allowed time per job is
> > 50 mins) - I made several attempts to break up the tests into several
> jobs,
> > but lack of maven skills prevented me from achieving that goal.
> > 5. Repo-admin permissions only needed to start this integration
> (one-time)
> > and thereafter, incremental improvements can be made via any regular PR.
> > Perhaps folks with maven expertise can get to it sooner.
> >
> > Please vote on proceeding with the integration with TravisCI and CodeCov.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Priyank
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:54 PM Thomas D'Silva
> > <tdsilva@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I assume we want to run all the ITs. Whevenver a PR is created Travis CI
> >> will automatically runs all the tests
> >> and post the results to the PR.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:08 PM Geoffrey Jacoby <gjacoby@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't know much about this particular tool, but something like this
> >> would
> >>> be good.
> >>>
> >>> Our current toolchain, with HadoopQA needing a JIRA patch and our code
> >>> reviews mostly migrating to Github is really awkward to deal with, so
> >>> TravisCI's Github integration's a definite plus.
> >>>
> >>> An example of Tephra's integration is here[1]: and on TravisCI's home
> >>> page[2] they mention that open source projects are free.
> >>>
> >>> Assuming there are no licensing, scalability or implementation gotchas
> >> I'd
> >>> be a +1.
> >>>
> >>> Geoffrey
> >>>
> >>> [1]  https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-tephra
> >>> [2] https://travis-ci.org/
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM William Shen <
> willshen@marinsoftware.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1 It would be awesome to be able to do this.
> >>>> Any concerns if we choose to run long IT as part of this setup?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:00 PM Pedro Boado <pboado@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What IT would you suggest to run? Testsuite (including long IT)
takes
> >>>> ~2h.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2019, 20:40 Thomas D'Silva, <tdsilva@salesforce.com
> >>>>> .invalid>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 I think its a great idea. This would make it easier for new
> >>>>> contributors
> >>>>>> to run tests
> >>>>>> and also make it easier for committers to verify a patch doesn't
> >>> break
> >>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:34 PM Priyank Porwal <
> >>>> priyankporwal@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What do you guys think about this work to setup Travis-CI
and
> >>>>>> CodeCoverage
> >>>>>>> for Phoenix? The objective would be to run unit and integration
> >>> tests
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>> each PR, show code-coverage reports and perhaps also do
> >> checkstyle
> >>>>> checks
> >>>>>>> (after initial scrubbing effort). This would help rid of
manual
> >>> patch
> >>>>>>> uploads that we need currently, plus bring visibility into
code
> >>>> health.
> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4863
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Priyank
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

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