On Aug 30, 2017 3:42 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-08-30 11:32 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2017-08-30 11:05 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you Sijie I forgot to subscribe to new issues@ mailing lists > > and I > > > > missed some PR/Issue > > > > It is a very good enhancement > > > > > > > > when we are stable I would like to switch the code-coverage tools to > > this > > > > new environment. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure why do you need to switch. It is just running exact same > > > maven command using an official maven docker image. > > > > > > Also, code-coverage should be part of nightly release ci. I don't see a > > > reason to have a separate code-coverage ci. > > > > > > > OK, I will do that once the code coverage job is stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that on Travis-CI we are already executing in containers, but > > > > Travis does not give us enough resources to run the complete suite > > > > > > > > > > It is because currently we are use 'reuseFolk=false', the whole suite > > need > > > to run very long time because it has to folk a jvm for individual test > > > cases. > > > > > > > We need to have better clean ups for tests, I hope we will enhance the > > suite soon. > > It would be great to run parallel tests too, now that we have ephemeral > > ports it would be feasible > > > > It is not the port problem. It is a problem from open fds when reusing jvm > forks. > Yep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is a pity because I would like to integrate the code-coverage on > PRs > > > > > > > > > How do you want to use code-coverage for PRs? > > > > > > > I see in some open source projects, like Pravega (which does not use > > Coveralls), that there is bot which runs tests and code coverage tools > and > > adds comments to the PR which tell something like 'this patch will > > increase/reduce code coverage by XX %' > > this will be a good enhancement > > > > Okay. but what does it actually mean to the contributors? What do the > contributors need to do if code coverage is reduced by XX%? > for contributors none, but for the committers which are evaluating the patch it is a good KPI for the patch for a patch which introduces a lot of "uncovered" code we would require more tests to be added to the patch for important changes it is not obvious how much code is exercised do you think that is not useful ? We can try. But I don't know how useful it will be. -- Enrico > > - Sijie > > > > > > -- Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > I think we will need Travis to make things simple, otherwise I will > > > figure > > > > out how to obtain it with jenkins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Enrico > > > > > > > > 2017-08-30 10:34 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Hi Enrico, > > > > > > > > > > You can check the description in the pull request - > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/481 > > > > > > > > > > We've tried to fix the flaky tests as we can. However there are > some > > > test > > > > > cases that I can't figure out what are the root causes and seems to > > be > > > > > related to network settings. > > > > > #481 is adding a script to run maven build in a docker environment > > and > > > we > > > > > setup another pull request CI job, so a pull request is running on > > > > jenkins > > > > > machine and also in docker. > > > > > We can monitor and compare to see if what is really happening. > > > > > > > > > > If running in docker can produce a much stable CI environment, we > can > > > > > remove the one that runs on physical CI machine. > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have just seen this new job bookkeeper-precommit- > > > pullrequest-docker > > > > > > and the commit about tests on docker + the change about running > > > > zookeeper > > > > > > with real ephemeral port. > > > > > > I think these are great changes ! > > > > > > I have missed that piece of the story, most of this work is > related > > > to > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/463 > > > > > > > > > > > > @Sijie @Jia > > > > > > can you please summarize the changes and the direction ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
