+1 to branching based on e.g. files in commit. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not entirely familiar with the current complexity of the Jenkins jobs > on the ASF infrastructure, but I think it's very sensible to look at the > files in a commit (e.g., "git diff-tree --no-commit-id --name-only -r > HEAD") and branch based on patterns in that data. > > -- Philip > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Taras Bobrovytsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I like the idea of having tests for tests as part of GVD. This helps > ensure > > that the tests are always functional and are never broken by a commit. > > Having tests in a functional state is arguably just as important as > having > > a functional product. > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Michael Brown <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm about to start working on Impala's random query generator, a > testing > > > tool to help find test gaps in Impala's functional tests. > > > > > > The random query generator and infra code around it has some functional > > and > > > pure unit tests [0] that are not part of GVD, but it wouldn't be hard > to > > > fold them into GVD's execution. As part of the upcoming work, I plan to > > add > > > even more tests: we need quick unit or functional tests to ensure a > test > > > tool is working as expected. > > > > > > What are people's thoughts on having these "tests for tests", or infra > > > tests, be part of GVD? > > > > > > Pros: > > > 1. Helps prevent regression in tools and infra > > > > > > 2. Verification procedure is the same as with the rest of Impala: run > > > gerrit-verify-dryrun > > > > > > 3. Automatic Apache RAT verification > > > > > > Cons: > > > 1. Patches to the random query generator tend to be self-contained. > Ought > > > we spend more AWS cycles and time building Impala and running these > tests > > > in order to run some ostensible (but growing) infra tests? > > > > > > 2. Flaky tests and failing builds can block test tool progress > > > > > > Other solutions if the cons win: > > > 1. Separate Jenkins job for these tests (there's a separate job for > > > submitting and verifying docs, for instance). A con of this is that > this > > > can lead to a proliferation of Jenkins jobs and confusion with > > contributors > > > on which jobs apply where. Also, if there is ever a patch where Impala > > > proper and query generator are both updated, which job wins? > > > > > > 2. Status quo and set Verified+1/Submitted by hand. This is much easier > > for > > > committers than non-committers. I'm OK with status quo, but in the > past, > > > there have been requests to improve this situation [1] > > > > > > For a data point, I can cd to "tests/comparison/tests", run > > > "impala-py.test", and 71 tests take about 10 seconds to run. > > > > > > Thanks for any feedback. > > > > > > [0] > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala. > > > git;a=tree;f=tests/comparison/tests;h=49e3b5d7d9a6f5f716c135bda36292 > > > e05fb0e0d3;hb=HEAD > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-4756 > > > > > >
