+1 I think it makes sense to rename.
Regards JB Le 13 août 2018 à 19:14, à 19:14, Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> a écrit: >I think it makes sense to rename. > >Also, although we should hold perf tests to a high reliability >standard, we >should also prioritize fixing and triaging PostCommit tests earlier. > >Best >-P. > >On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:10 AM Andrew Pilloud <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> I have no objections with renaming these to Perf instead of >PostCommit. >> >> I do disagree with your assessment that "Performance tests are much >less >> reliable ... they are much more flaky." I think we should be holding >perf >> tests to the same reliability standards as PostCommit tests. I'm >wondering >> why you think otherwise? >> >> Andrew >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 9:36 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> As I can understand, a lot of tests in Nexmark set are performance >tests. >>> I suggest to rename(or split) the set to performance tests. >>> >>> Performance tests are much less reliable compared to post-commit >tests >>> and should have different requirements. Additionally, they are much >more >>> flaky. >>> >>> Splitting out performance tests to separate set will allow us to >treat >>> failures with lower priority and add more tolerance for flakes >compared to >>> what we have decided for post-commit tests >>> <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/postcommits-policies/>. >>> >>> This will also be more organic to use different builder from >>> PostcommitJobBuilder >>> <https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/.test-infra/jenkins>, >since >>> we will want different requirements for perf tests. >>> >>> I do not believe we have a problem with this in current state, but I >>> expect this to become an issue in the future as amount of perf tests >grows. >>> >>> Regards, >>> --Mikhail >>> >>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>> >> -- >Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
