[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12016?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16373346#comment-16373346
 ] 

Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-12016:
---------------------------------------

Robert:

I was unclear. The only AwaitsFix annotations I was thinking of _removing_ were 
ones where the linked JIRA has been fixed. I don't think there are any in 
Lucene that fit that criterion anyway...

I'll _add_ annotations to reduce noise though, mostly in Solr. I think there 
are a couple of occasionally-failing tests in Lucene, but I'll be sure to 
discuss those ahead of time before adding any annotations there.

Yonik:

Right, I was thinking that we'd make any changes to the build system first, 
_then_ add any annotations or the like. My guess is there'll be a day or two 
where things might be wonky but I'll be sure to let people know.

In fact, One possible outcome here is that the build system change is just to 
add a tag to the subject line of e-mails indicating whether the build was run 
with or without the tests disabled and not change the defaults at all.... That 
decision has to be made first and coordinated with adding annotations.



> Reduce noise from flakey tests
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-12016
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12016
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: Tests
>    Affects Versions: 7.2, master (8.0)
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>            Assignee: Erick Erickson
>            Priority: Major
>
> We had a discussion of this topic on the dev list, look for a thread titled: 
> "Test failures are out of control.....". I'll try to summarize that 
> discussion here and we can move this JIRA forward. This may become an 
> umbrella issue.
> Current situation concerns:
> > There is so much noise from flakey tests (particularly Solr tests) that 
> > they are difficult to use.
> > The number of tests that regularly fail is increasing
> > Failures are being ignored
> > The number of failing tests makes releasing more difficult.
> > The number of failing tests make it harder to determine whether recent 
> > changes actually caused problems. Running the tests again until they 
> > succeed is used commonly at present, which is not robust.
> > e-mail notifications of failing tests are largely being ignored.
> Propsal:
> > Mark all currently "flakey" tests as BadApple or AwaitsFix
> > Run Jenkins jobs with BadApple (and/or AwaitsFix) enabled and disabled. 
> > Frequency TBD, depends partly on whether we can label emails from these 
> > runs for easy filtering of the two flavors.
> >> Label these runs with something suitable in the subject line (wish list)
> > Weekly reports on the tests labeled BadApple or AwaitsFix
> >> Perhaps this could be incorporated in the reports linked below (wish list)
> > Committers should enable BadApple (or AwaitsFix) regularly as a sanity 
> > check. Leave these as defaults.
> > We start getting _much_ more aggressive about not allowing _new_ flakey 
> > tests.
> NOTE: It's perfectly acceptable to have failing flakey tests as long as 
> someone is activey working on _fixing_ them.
> Concerns with solution
> > Decreases test coverage
> > Decreases visibility of flakey tests, making fixing them less likely.
> > Some tools (see below) that report on bad tests will not see tests that are 
> > annotated with BadApple or AwaitsFix.
> > Running unit tests and reporting errors are being conflated
> To be decided:
> > Can we label e-mails with failing tests with something in the subject line 
> > identifying whether they were run with BadApple/Awaits fix enabled or 
> > disabled? Can someone volunteer?
> > Is there any difference between BadApple and AwaitsFix? If not should we 
> > deprecate one? I propose we just use AwaitsFix and deprecate BadApple.
> > Can the automated reports (see below) be enhanced to also report tests 
> > labeled BadApple or AwaitsFix?
> Useful tools:
> > Steve Rowe's work on a Jenkins job to reproduce test failures (LUCENE-8106) 
> > Hoss has worked on aggregating all test failures from the 3 Jenkins systems 
> > (ASF, Policeman, and Steve's), downloading the test results & logs, and 
> > running some reports/stats on failures.
>   >> http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/
>   >> https://github.com/hossman/jenkins-reports/
>   >> http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/failure-report.html
> I've assigned this JIRA to myslef, but all volunteers welcome, especially 
> anything that changes the build system.....
> I've decided to make this a SOLR jira on the theory that most of the 
> offending tests are in the Solr hive, any sub-tasks for touching the build 
> system can go under LUCENE if wanted.
> Also, I expect to add the annotation to some more tests for a few days as 
> infrequent failures occur. Once we have stability (defined by there being 
> little noise) that'll stop.
> 3 BadApple 23 AwaitsFix annotations are currently in the code, linked to 
> these issues:
> HADOOP-14044
> HADOOP-9893
> LUCENE-3869
> LUCENE-5575")
> LUCENE-5595
> LUCENE-5737
> LUCENE-6709
> LUCENE-7161
> SOLR-2715
> SOLR-6213
> SOLR-6443
> SOLR-6944
> SOLR-7736
> SOLR-9036
> SOLR-10071
> SOLR-10107
> SOLR-10136
> SOLR-10734
> SOLR-10191
> SOLR-11134
> SOLR-11458
> SOLR-11714
> SOLR-11974
> Solr JIRAS about bad tests
> SOLR-2175
> SOLR-4147
> SOLR-5880
> SOLR-6423
> SOLR-6944
> SOLR-6961
> SOLR-6974
> SOLR-8122
> SOLR-8182
> SOLR-9869
> SOLR-10053
> SOLR-10070
> SOLR-10071
> SOLR-10139
> SOLR-10287
> SOLR-10815
> SOLR-11911



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to