How about we require the tests to pass as a prerequisite for commit? On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 3:16 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I cannot stress enough how important this is for the project. As an > example: We had the tests fail for just a few days, during that time we > have had check-ins that broke other test; now it's quite hard to figure out > which recent change broke the other tests. > We need the test suite *always* passing. It's impossible to maintain a > stable code base the size of Phoenix otherwise. > -- Lars > On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 10:04:12 AM PST, [email protected] < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I spent a lot of time making QA better. It can be better, but it's > stable enough. There're now very little excuses. "Test failure seems > unrelated" is not an excuse anymore.(4.x-HBase-1.3 has some issue where > HBase can't seem to start a cluster reliably... but all others are pretty > stable.) > After chatting with Andrew Purtell, one things I was going to offer is to > simply revert any change that breaks a test. Period.I'd volunteer some of > my time (hey, isn't that what a Chief Architect in a Fortune 100 company > should do?!) > With their changes reverted, people will presumably start to care. :)If I > hear no objects I'll start doing that a while. > Cheers. > -- Lars > On Monday, January 13, 2020, 06:23:01 PM PST, Josh Elser < > [email protected]> wrote: > > How do we keep getting into this mess: unreliable QA, people ignoring > QA, or something else? > > On 1/12/20 9:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > ... Not much else to say here... > > The tests have been failing again for a while... I will NOT fix them > again this time! Sorry folks. > > > > -- Lars > > > > >
