bq. run tests on 10 “noop" patches

Good idea, I think. I've upped NOOP patches on some of my JIRAs before,
only to establish the "acceptable" baseline of failing tests. One problem
was that failing-tests tended to change over time, so this needed
repeating.:/

The tighter commit rules are a welcome change.

Mithun

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM Sergey Shelukhin <ser...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
> patches now…
> Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find which
> tests are flaky?
>
> On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
> >initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
> >community.
> >
> >I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
> >consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
> >involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
> >normal development speed as soon as possible.
> >
> >From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
> >committer should enforce this policy.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Jesús
> >
> >
> >On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK" <mythro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >    +1
> >
> >    On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen <yc...@cloudera.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >    > +1
> >    >
> >    > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth <ss...@apache.org>
> >wrote:
> >    >
> >    > > +1
> >    > >
> >    > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> >    > > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >    > >
> >    > > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> >failing
> >    > > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> >gather
> >    > > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
> >patches to
> >    > Hive.
> >    > > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> >obtained
> >    > > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> >committing
> >    > > under
> >    > > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
> >as
> >    > having
> >    > > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
> >from
> >    > > > testing infra before committing.
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
> >testing
> >    > infra
> >    > > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
> >2) we
> >    > will
> >    > > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> >testing
> >    > > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
> >are not
> >    > > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > > Here is my +1.
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > > Thanks,
> >    > > >
> >    > > > Jesús
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> >    > > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >    > > >
> >    > > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> >    > > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > > >
> >    > >
> >    >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to