Once we agree upon what the flow should be, I'm also in favor of reverting
patches which break things. Such commits cause problems for all subsequent
patches - where multiple people end up debugging the test.
In terms of disabling tests - we may want to consider how often the test
fails, before disabling them. There are flaky tests - and I suspect we'll
end up with a lot of disabled tests if a test is disabled for a single
There have been offline suggestions about adding findbugs analysis, rat
checks etc. The indentation checks, I think, falls into the same category.
Would be really nice to hear from others as well. These changes will be
painful to start with - but should help once the tests stabilize further.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 from me too.
> I think it lowers the barrier for the contributors, if there are clean and
> easy to follow rules for adding a patch. I had very good experience with
> the Hadoop commit flow where only “all green” results are accepted.
> If we are thinking about changes in the commit flow, it would be great to
> run code format checks before and after the patch, and call out any
> increase of formatting errors. I see too many nits in the reviews where the
> reviewer points out formatting problems. This could be avoided and the
> reviewer can concentrate on the real code instead of formatting.
> After we decide the new commit flow we should update the documentation on
> the wiki as well.
> Of course I am happy to help out with any of the related tasks too, so if
> you need my help just say so :)
> > On Oct 14, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Zsombor Klara <zsombor.kl...@cloudera.com>
> > +1 from my side as well. I also like the suggestion to revert a patch
> > causing new test failures instead of expecting the owner to fix the
> > in follow up jiras.
> > And I would also have a borderline "radical" suggestion.. if a flaky test
> > is failing and the committer isn't sure at a glance that the failure is
> > benign (stat diff failure for example I would consider low risk, race
> > conditions on the other hand high risk), put an ignore annotation on it.
> > my view a flaky test is pretty much useless. If it breaks people will
> > ignore it (because it fails so often...) and anyway how can you be sure
> > that the green run is the standard and the failure is the exception and
> > the other way around. We have thousands of tests, ignoring a dozen won't
> > decrease coverage significantly and will take us that much closer to a
> > point where we can demand a green pre-commit run.
> > Thanks
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> > pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >> +1 on the proposal. Adding more to it.
> >> A lot of time has been spent on improving the test runtime and bringing
> >> down the flaky tests.
> >> Following jiras should give an overview of the effort involved
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-14547
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-13503
> >> Committers please ensure that the reported failures are absolutely not
> >> related
> >> to the patch before committing it.
> >> I would also propose the following to maintain a clean and some tips to
> >> maintain fast test runs
> >> 1) Revert patch that is causing a failure. It should be the
> >> of
> >> the contributor to make sure the patch is not causing any failures. I am
> >> against creating follow ups
> >> for fixing test failures usually because it gets ignored or it gets
> >> priority causing wasted effort
> >> and time for failure analysis for every other developers waiting to
> >> their patch.
> >> 2) +1 from reviewers AFTER a clean green run. Or if a reviewer is
> >> convinced that test failures are unrelated.
> >> May be we should stop conditional +1s and wait for clean green run.
> >> 3) Avoid slow tests (there is jira to print out runtime of newly added
> >> tests). In general, its good
> >> to have many smaller tests as opposed to single big tests. If the qfile
> >> junit test is big, splitting it
> >> up will help in parallelizing them and avoiding stragglers.
> >> 4) Avoid adding tests to MiniMr (slowest of all).
> >> 5) Try to keep the test runtime (see surefire-report to get correct
> >> runtime without initialization time) under a minute.
> >> 6) Avoid adding more read-only tables to init script as this will
> >> the initialization time.
> >> 7) If the test case does not require explain plan then avoid it as most
> >> failures are explain diffs.
> >> 8) If the test case requires explain and if it does not depend on table
> >> partition stats explicitly set stats for the table or partition.
> >> Explicitly setting stats will avoid expensive stats computation time and
> >> avoids flakiness due to stats diff.
> >> 9) Prefer jUnit over qtest.
> >> 10) Add explicitly timeout for jUnit test to avoid indefinite hanging of
> >> tests (surefire timeouts after 40 mins)
> >> Thoughts?
> >> Thanks
> >> Prasanth
> >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Siddharth Seth <ss...@apache.org<mailto:
> >> ss...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> There's been a lot of work to make the test runs faster, as well as more
> >> reliable via HIVE-14547, HIVE-13503, and several other jiras. Test
> >> are around the 1 hour mark, and going down. There were a few green
> >> pre-commit runs (after years?). At the same time, there's still some
> >> tests.
> >> We really should try to keep the test runtimes down, as well as the
> >> of failures - so that the pre-commit runs can provide useful
> >> I'm not sure what the current approach w.r.t precommit runs before a
> >> commit. What I've seen in other projects is that the pre-commit needs to
> >> run, and come back clean (mostly) before a commit goes in. Between what
> >> used to be 5 day wait times, and inconsistent runs - I don't think this
> >> always followed in Hive.
> >> It'll be useful to start relying on pre-commit test results again. Given
> >> the flaky tests, I'd suggest the following
> >> 1. Pre-commit must be run on a patch before committing (with very few
> >> exceptions)
> >> 2. A green test run is ideal
> >> 3. In case there are failures - keep track of these as sub-jiras under a
> >> flaky test umbrella jira (Some under HIVE-14547 already) - to be
> >> fixed.
> >> 4. Before committing - cite relevant jiras for a flaky test (create and
> >> cite if it doesn't already exist).
> >> This should help us build up a list of flaky tests over various runs,
> >> will hopefully get fixed at some point.
> >> Thoughts?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sid