On (16/02/17 09:50), William Brown wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 08:16 -0500, Mark Reynolds wrote:
>> On 02/15/2017 04:48 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> > On (15/02/17 09:05), Jenkins wrote:
>> >> See
>> >> <http://vm-058-081.abc.idm.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com:8080/job/389-DS-NIGHTLY/165/>
>> > Is there a reason why jenkins failures are ignored for a week?
>> With our VERY limited resources, and other higher priority issues going
>> on recently (like migrating to Pagure), no one has time to look into
>> these upstream failures (most of which are probably false positives due
>> to recent changes in lib389). We plan to look into them soon.
>> You are also welcome to investigate some these failures if you would like :)
>And I've been buried in other tasks too. Normally it's Mark or I who
>There is one known test case failure that I've been working to resolve
>which is this one:
>Which if you look is one of the issues there in the error output:
> def test_ticket48272(topology_st):
>So I am working to fix this, but I want to fix it right, not fast. It's
>a delicate area of code.
> def test_ticket48906_dblock_default(topology_st):
>That test case is stupid, and my autotuning will break it. It needs to
>be cleaned out.
> def test_basic_dse(topology_st, import_example_ldif):
>No idea why this one is failing at the moment, haven't started to look
I know that everyone is busy.
But in our team we have a policy that new patches should not be pushed
if tests are not green.
It's much better to disable flaky test rather then ignore failures
for a week
my 2 cents
389-devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org