@Kenneth If we disable tests, I'd call Java ULR a dead code. One of the better compromises: 1. disable tests. 2. Add tag to the last commit where Java ULR existed. 3. Remove Java ULR from head.
Keeping history, no extra dead code at head. --Mikhail Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> wrote: > On that note, we should also think about adding PVR for python reference > runners. Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6837 > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How about this compromise: >> >> 1. disable the test since clearly no one is relying on the functionality >> that is broken >> 2. leave the Java ULR as-is for now, and a volunteer can pick it up and >> make it work if they want >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mikhail Gryzykhin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We have Python PVR Reference post-commit tests failing for quite some >>> time now. These are tests for java reference runner. >>> >>> According to this thread >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b235f8ee55a737ea399756edd80b1218ed34d3439f7b0ed59bfa8e40@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>, >>> we are deciding what to do with java reference runner and might want to >>> remove it from code base. >>> >>> My question is: do we want to a) invest time in fixing python PVR tests, >>> or b) disable this test and start cleaning up code? >>> >>> a) Is worth it if we want to invest into java reference runner in the >>> future. >>> b) Is worth if we want to invest into Python and forfeit java reference >>> runner. >>> >>> Option b) seem more reasonable to me atm, since most people lean towards >>> going forward with Python reference runner. >>> >>> Please, share your thoughts. >>> >>> Regards, >>> --Mikhail >>> >>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>> >>
