> Regarding "Split our CI "test" job into unit and integration
I believe all of the "steps" inside the "stage" directive are run on the same node sequentially. I think we could do something like steps { doValidation() doUnitTest() doIntegrationTest() tryStreamsArchetype() } and it shouldn't affect the overall runtime much. +1 to sticking with @Tag("integration") rather than adding a new tag. It would be good to keep track of any unit tests we "downgrade" to integration with a JIRA. On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 12:18 PM Josep Prat <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > Regarding "Split our CI "test" job into unit and integration so we can > start collecting data on those suites", can we run these 2 tasks in the > same machine? So they won't need to compile classes twice for the same > exact code? > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:05 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > > Why can't we add @Tag("integration") for all of those tests? Seems like > > that would not be too hard. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 9:03 AM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > +1 on that strategy. > > > > > > I see several flaky tests that aren't marked with @Tag("integration") > > > or @IntegrationTest, and I think those would make using the unitTest > > > target ineffective here. We could also start a new tag @Tag("flaky") > > > and exclude that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 8:57 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do think we can add a PR to the merge queue while bypassing branch > > > > potections (like we do for the Merge button today), but I'm not 100% > > > sure. > > > > I like the idea of running unit tests, though I don't think we have > > data > > > on > > > > how long just the unit tests run on Jenkins (since we run the "test" > > > target > > > > which includes all tests). I'm also not sure how flaky the unit test > > > suite > > > > is alone. > > > > > > > > Since we already bypass the PR checks when merging, it seems that > > adding > > > a > > > > required compile/check step before landing on trunk is strictly an > > > > improvement. > > > > > > > > What about this as a short term plan: > > > > > > > > 1) Add the merge queue, only run compile/check > > > > 2) Split our CI "test" job into unit and integration so we can start > > > > collecting data on those suites > > > > 3) Add "unitTest" to merge queue job once we're satisfied it won't > > cause > > > > disruption > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:43 AM Josep Prat > <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > I like the idea, it will solve the problem we've seen a couple of > > > times in > > > > > the last 2 weeks where compilation for some Scala version failed, > it > > > was > > > > > probably overlooked during the PR build because of the flakiness of > > > tests > > > > > and the compilation failure was buried among the amount of failed > > > tests. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the type of check, I'm not sure what's best, have a real > > > quick > > > > > check or a longer one including unit tests. A full test suite will > > run > > > per > > > > > each commit in each PR (these we have definitely more than 8 per > day) > > > and > > > > > this should be used to ensure changes are safe and sound. I'm not > > sure > > > if > > > > > having unit tests run as well before the merge itself would cause > too > > > much > > > > > of an extra load on the CI machines. > > > > > We can go with `gradlew unitTest` and see if this takes too long or > > > causes > > > > > too many delays with the normal pipeline. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:16 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a helpful thing (and something I hoped we would > use > > > when > > > > > I > > > > > > learned about it), but it does require the validation checks to > be > > > > > reliable > > > > > > (or else the PR won't be merged). Sounds like you are suggesting > to > > > skip > > > > > > the tests for the merge queue validation. Could we perhaps > include > > > the > > > > > unit > > > > > > tests as well? That would incentivize us to ensure the unit tests > > are > > > > > fast > > > > > > and reliable. Getting the integration tests to the same state > will > > > be a > > > > > > longer journey. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 7:04 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently learned about Github's Merge Queue feature, and I > > think > > > it > > > > > > could > > > > > > > help us out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially, when you hit the Merge button on a PR, it will add > > > the PR > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > queue and let you run a CI job before merging. Just something > > > simple > > > > > like > > > > > > > compile + static analysis would probably save us from a lot of > > > > > headaches > > > > > > on > > > > > > > trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two situations this would help us avoid: > > > > > > > * Two valid PRs are merged near one another, but they create a > > code > > > > > > > breakage (rare) > > > > > > > * A quick little "fixup" commit on a PR actually breaks > something > > > (less > > > > > > > rare) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at our Github stats, we are averaging under 40 commits > > per > > > > > week. > > > > > > > Assuming those primarily come in on weekdays, that's 8 commits > > per > > > day. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > we just run "gradlew check -x tests" for the merge queue job, I > > > don't > > > > > > think > > > > > > > we'd get backlogged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > David Arthur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> > > > > > > > > > > *Josep Prat* > > > > > Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* > > > > > josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 > > > > > aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | < > > > https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud > > > > > > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> < > > > > > https://twitter.com/aiven_io> > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Arthur > > > > > > > > -- > [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> > > *Josep Prat* > Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* > josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 > aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> < > https://twitter.com/aiven_io> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > -- David Arthur