[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12990412#comment-12990412
]
Myrna van Lunteren commented on DERBY-1116:
-------------------------------------------
I propose to close this issue. Of course, this was essentially something that
applied to the old derbyall when it held all tests...with lots of waiting
around in between. But it could be extended to the junit suites.All, which
takes more than Rick's desired 1 hour.
However, even if we apply this to suites.All, I think we shouldn't do this.
Firstly, I think creating a minimal subset will cause extra complexity and
maintenance trouble. We'll have to go through and figure out exceptionally good
tests, and communally decide on it and adjust the tests in it...Then maintain
that list/suite to ensure it's still accurate. Perhaps that's something we can
look at again once we got Emma working again, but even then it would be lower
on *my* list than adding tests in areas we don't properly cover now.
Secondly, which tests to run is different for each change. In principle, we
should run the entire suite when in doubt - that's why we have the regression
tests - but for many changes that is just obviously overkill. And on the other
hand, no matter which tests we put in a minimal acceptance test, there will be
changes that would necessitate other tests to be run...
Finally, with the recent (since 10.5) changes enabling running of junit suites
or runs in parallel I think the overall time for the tests can be configured to
an acceptable time.
> Define a minimal acceptance test suite for checkins
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1116
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1116
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Test
> Reporter: David Van Couvering
> Priority: Minor
>
> Now that we have an excellent notification system for tinderbox/nightly
> regression failures, I would like to suggest that we reduce the size of the
> test suite being run prior to checkin. I am not sure what should be in such
> a minimal test, but in particular I would like to remove things such as the
> stress test and generally reduce the number of tests being run for each
> subsystem/area of code.
> As an example of how derbyall currently affects my productivity, I was
> running derbyall on my machine starting at 2pm, and by evening it was still
> running. At 9pm my machine was accidentally powered down, and this morning I
> am restarting the test run.
> I have been tempted (and acted on such temptation) in the past to run a
> smaller set of tests, only to find out that I have blocked others who are
> running derbyall prior to checkin. For this reason, we need to define a
> minimal acceptance test (MATS) that we all agree to run prior to checkin.
> One could argue that you can run your tests on another machine and thus
> reduce productivity, but we can't assume everybody in the community has nice
> big test servers to run their tests on.
> If there are no objections, I can take a first pass at defining what this
> test suite should look like, but I suspect many others in the community have
> strong opinions about this and may even wish to volunteer to do this
> definition themselves (for example, some of you who may be working in the QA
> division in some of our Big Companies :) ).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
