On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 November 2016 at 08:06, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Should we add to our pre-merge testing (aka GVM, aka GVO) some tests > > that don't run impalad, but only build it or check for correctness? > > > > For instance: > > > > 1. bin/run_clang_tidy.sh - should we force our code to always be > > clang-tidy? > > > > I don't have enough experience of the tool to know if this likely to be a > help or hindrance. > > > +1 for this. My opinion is unless we foresee some patches that would fail clang-tidy but still be considered a valid patch by us, we should have this as a pre-commit test. > > > 2. bin/check-rat-report.py - uses Apache RAT to check that our code > > has proper license headers > > > > +1 > > > > > > 3. Other buildall.sh options - in the past we have broken -asan, > > -release, or -so without breaking the pre-commit test. > > > > If all can be tested for 'free' wrt to wall-clock-time, then sure. But if > that's not possible, I'd only consider building -release, and maybe not > even that. -asan failures are infrequent enough that I don't expect it to > be worth the extra time it would add to the pre-commit build. > > -so is less important to me. > > > > > > 4. Docs build > > > > I think I can do these without increasing the end-to-end time it takes > > to run the tests, by doing them in parallel. One issue I see is that > > committers who see their change as minor and merge it manually, > > without pre-merge testing, might break clang-tidy or RAT tests. > > > > For that reason, perhaps a separate docs build makes the most sense. >
