The person introducing flakiness to a test will almost always have run it locally and on CI first with success. It’s usually later when they first start failing, and it’s often tricky to attribute to a particular commit/person.
So long as we have these - and we’ve had flaky tests for as long as C* has existed - the problem will persist, and gating PRs on clean runs won’t achieve anything other than dealing with folks who straight up ignore the spirit of the policy and knowingly commit code with test breakage that can be attributed to their change. I’m not aware of such committers in this community, however. > On 24 Jan 2020, at 09:01, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I find it only useful for nits, or for coaching-level comments that I would >> never want propagated to Jira. > > Actually, I'll go one step further. GitHub encourages comments that are too > trivial, poisoning the well for third parties trying to find useful > information. If the comment wouldn't be made in Jira, it probably shouldn't > be made. > > > > On 24/01/2020, 08:56, "Benedict Elliott Smith" <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > The common factor is flaky tests, not people. You get a clean run, you > commit. Turns out, a test was flaky. This reduces trust in CI, so people > commit without looking as closely at results. Gating on clean tests doesn't > help, as you run until you're clean. Rinse and repeat. Breakages > accumulate. > > This is what happens leading up to every release - nobody commits knowing > there's a breakage. We have a problem with bad tests, not bad people or > process. > > FWIW, I no longer like the GitHub workflow. I find it only useful for > nits, or for coaching-level comments that I would never want propagated to > Jira. I find a strong patch submission of any size is better managed with > human-curated Jira comments, and provides a better permanent record. When > skimming a discussion, Jira is more informative than GitHub. Even with the > GitHub UX, the context hinders rather than helps. > > As to propagating to Jira: has anyone here ever read them? I haven't as > they're impenetrable; ugly and almost entirely noise. If anything, I would > prefer that we discourage GitHub for review as a project, not move towards it. > > This is without getting into the problem of multiple branch PRs. Until > this is _provably_ painless, we cannot introduce a workflow that requires it > and blocks commit on it. Working with multiple branches is difficult enough > already, surely? > > > > On 24/01/2020, 03:16, "Jeff Jirsa" <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 100% agree > > François and team wrote a doc on testing and gating commits > Blake wrote a doc on testing and gating commits > Every release there’s a thread on testing and gating commits > > People are the common factor every time. Nobody wants to avoid merging > their patch because someone broke a test elsewhere. > > We can’t block merging technically with the repo as it exists now so > it’s always going to come down to people and peer pressure, until or unless > someone starts reverting commits that break tests > > (Of course, someone could write a tool that automatically reverts new > commits as long as tests fail....) > > On Jan 23, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> I am reacting to what I currently see >>> happening in the project; tests fail as the norm and this is kinda seen as >>> expected, even though it goes against the policies as I understand it. >> >> After over half a decade seeing us all continue to struggle with this >> problem, I've come around to the school of "apply pain" (I mean that as >> light-hearted as you can take it) when there's a failure to incent fixing; >> specifically in this case, the only idea I can think of is preventing merge >> w/any failing tests on a PR. We go through this cycle as we approach each >> major release: we have the gatekeeper of "we're not going to cut a release >> with failing tests obviously", and we clean them up. After the release, the >> pressure is off, we exhale, relax, and flaky test failures (and others) >> start to creep back in. >> >> If the status quo is the world we want to live in, that's totally fine and >> no judgement intended - we can build tooling around test failure history >> and known flaky tests etc to optimize engineer workflows around that >> expectation. But what I keep seeing on threads like this (and have always >> heard brought up in conversation) is that our collective *moral* stance is >> that we should have green test boards and not merge code if it introduces >> failing tests. >> >> Not looking to prescribe or recommend anything, just hoping that >> observation above might be of interest or value to the conversation. >> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:17 PM Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/23/20 3:53 PM, David Capwell wrote: >>>> >>>> 2) Nightly build email to dev@? >>> >>> Nope. builds@c.a.o is where these go. >>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?bui...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
