+1 annotate categories On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Was talking with Eric off-list about a recent test he added. > > Over the past two major release lines (1.6 and 1.7), there's been a > significant level of effort put forth by multiple devs to get the > integration tests running on "terrible" hardware. This has been a great > endeavor because our tests have never been more stable and it's even helped > us catch bugs that we would have otherwise assumed as transiently failing > (ACCUMULO-3859 is a great example). > > Because we are writing a database, we're always concerned about > performance regressions, both high-level and low-level. I'd like to propose > that we recognize and accept this head-on and try to move these > specifically "high-load" and "performance related" tests to their own > execution phase that we can run specifically on nodes that meet the > necessary preconditions. > > Some examples of tests: > > DeleteTableDuringSplitIT > DurabilityIT > ManySplitIT > RollWALPerformanceIT > > I know we can do some classification of tests via surefire/failsafe which > should roughly meet our goals (typically via an annotation on the class). > Thus, we could add a specific flag to a Maven build that would include this > subset of tests. > > What do people think? Do others also think that this is worth pursuing? > > - Josh >
