I think we don't need to enforce it or gatekeep this any way. The thing is, if we have the agreement that we want to have this official workflow, it should fix the problem you are mentioning Toni, that people are afraid to do so. If it will be officially stated, that failing tests can be disabled in the code, people should just do it. They can always point to this potential agreement. The best thing would be to even document it on Confluence. I will do that if we have an agreement on this.
Tibor Dňa st 24. 1. 2024, 12:40 Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> napísal(a): > Not informing the author was my mistake on that PR. I should have asked the > original author to review it. > > But the problem is not that we lack this procedure. The KIE team agreed on > this in 2015. It is that maybe we lack the strength to do it, especially > when it is someone else's area of code. This needs some sort of gatekeeper > or supervisor and time frames when the build quality and if these problems > were acted on are validated and measured. > > Meanwhile I offer myself to work on these and disable them, if anyone wants > to point me to some flaky test I can act on them. I could even make some > system for measurement. We can then, or now, decide what we then do with > that data. > > Toni > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:04 PM Tibor Zimányi <tzima...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I think the notification of the involved commiter could be done as part > of > > creating of the issue to fix the tests. The person involved can be > assigned > > as an asignee. > > > > T. > > > > Dňa ut 23. 1. 2024, 18:50 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > napísal(a): > > > > > Ok, but I think we first need to establish a way (my apologies is that > > way > > > is already there) to notify committerthat a test that they were > involved > > > with is failing > > > That way, we will avoid disable tests like this one > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/issues/1831, > > which > > > are quite important to ensure Springboot messaging is working. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 6:38 PM ricardo zanini fernandes < > > > ricardozan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:03 PM Martin Cimbálek <cim...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Martin Cimbalek > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:36 PM Tibor Zimányi <tzima...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to propose a workflow for situations, when some tests are > > > > failing > > > > > > for a longer time. In such cases, my proposed workflow is: > > > > > > - If a test or a set of tests is failing for two days (nightlies > or > > > PR > > > > > > checks), ignore those tests in the codebase, so they are not > > > executed. > > > > > > - File an issue in kie-issues repository, reporting the test > > > failures. > > > > > > - If the issue is not resolved for half a year, delete those > tests > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think please? This should make sure all failures that > > > don't > > > > > get > > > > > > fixed immediately after they occur get logged in the issue > tracker, > > > so > > > > > they > > > > > > can be appropriately handled and don't block unrelated PR checks > > and > > > > > > builds. It will also make sure that tests that are not fixed for > a > > > long > > > > > > time (therefore they could be perceived as not important) are > not a > > > > > > maintenance burden for the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Tibor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
