I'd prefer not to leave it up to authors to select which tests are appropriate. Sometimes we get it right and others we are horribly wrong.
Thanks, Sean -----Original Message----- From: Qifan Chen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:20 AM To: dev <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests I agree with Sandhya and wonder if we can enhance check-PR tests (hive for example, in question) with the following twist. 1. Randomly select several (say 3) tests from regression/hive. The rational is that we only need to sanity check the changes and a full daily build with test will follow the merge. 2. Before the check-in, we always run the full regression test, and I do not see the value to run full Hive again in check-PR. 3. In the future, we could find the most appreciate tests for check-PR (instead of randomly select, or select the full set). The author can point out the nature of the change and the check-in tool does the selection. For example, a change in DoP for Hbase tables will select some tests from regress/seabase, but not from regress/hive. Thanks --Qifan On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Sandhya Sundaresan < [email protected]> wrote: > +0 for me. > I am not sure of the need to add the whole test suite to check tests. > The hive regressions do run nightly anyway so failures should be clear > on each nightly run on a daily basis. > My concern is that long running tests like hive/TEST018 are more to test > features like bulkload/unload and since we already have the option to > run "extra tests" in Jenkins, I'm not sure bringing in entire test > suites into check tests is the right approach or trend going forward > and adding time and resources to what is supposed to be a sanity test for > every single PR. > > Sandhya > > -----Original Message----- > From: Selva Govindarajan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 7:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > Hive regressions takes little less than an hour. As I said before, the > time is not a factor because the regressions are run in parallel in > different VMs. Seabase regressions which is run as part of check-PR > takes around 1 hour and 40 mins. Hence hive regressions shouldn't add > more time for check-PR to complete, but of course it would need another > VM. > > Selva > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jin, Jian (Seth) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > How long will it take for Hive regression? > > Br, > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Ming (Ming) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 2016年7月16日 9:16 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > +1 to this > > -----Original Message----- > From: Selva Govindarajan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > If you have subscribed to Trafodion Daily Build, you would have > noticed that the daily build has been failing for some days. Most > often, it is due the failure in hive regression tests run as part of > the daily build. > Lately, there has been some conscious effort made successfully to > ensure that the hive regression tests can be run reliably. To maintain > the Trafodion daily build in that state, I am proposing to include > hive regressions to check-PR tests. It shouldn’t add the overall time > taken to regressions tests because tests are run in parallel on > different VMs, though it would consume more resources. > > > > - Selva > -- Regards, --Qifan
