Thanks Steve for resurrecting this discussion. Hive tests have been stabilized to a greater extent that we shouldn't have false failures now. Recently, there has been a quite amount of contribution coming in the area related to hive in Trafodion. Hence I would vote +1 for adding hive tests to check PR.
Selva -----Original Message----- From: Steve Varnau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests Hi, I wanted to revisit this discussion to come to resolution. There was a digression into the idea of dynamically choosing tests, but I'd like to come back to original proposal of adding an extra suite to the check tests. As I read the thread, there were several responses in support of the proposal, and a couple of reservations. The reservations include increasing the chance for false failures, which already can be a headache. Also the concern of adding long running tests that are included in hive versus maybe adding a few more small tests to core. Or perhaps using "extra tests" as needed, which is available on request. I'm willing to add another test job if that is what the community wants, but might it make more sense to more small tests to core or move some from hive to core? --Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Selva Govindarajan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > I totally agree with Steve to use a simple and predictable mechanism > to do check PR tests, If my memory serves me right, prior to Trafodion > becoming an Apache incubating project, hive tests were part of > check-PR. Because of unpredictable state of hive regressions then it > was decided to suspend > running hive regressions as part of check-in. Based on the current state > of Trafodion, and the fact that the hive regressions have been > stabilized to a greater extent, it is important that this stability is > maintained by the future contributions. Recently many contributions > have come in hive-related area of the code. > > Adding hive regressions as part of check-PR should not increase the > overall time to complete the check-PR, but it would require additional > resources,. > Hence, Trafodion Jenkins infrastructure would incur additional cost. > > I am expecting the Trafodion Release Manager of R2.1 will help us to > determine with the community input what is the best option to go with. > > Selva > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Varnau [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > The current test process looks at which files have been modified and > puts it into a bucket, which is used to determine what tests to run. > However, the only buckets that now exist are DOC and NONDOC. > > So if the change consists only of things in the docs/ tree, then it > only does static check and a docs build. If there are non-docs > changes, it assumes it needs to run all the build and tests. > > It is pretty conservative, but the more heuristics we put in to > customize the tests, the more chance that it will miss something. I > can imagine a connectivity only change not running the jobs that don't > exercise connectivity. But figuring out what things might affect hive > tests seems much harder. > > There are many things (installer, executor,...) that might affect any > of our tests. Seems safer to keep the test heuristics very simple and > predictable, and change the content of the test suites to what ought > to be in check versus nightly. > > --Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Qifan Chen [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:43 AM > > To: dev <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Proposal to add hive regression tests to check-PR tests > > > > The author just honestly describes the changes, and the tool picks > > the right tests. Thanks --Qifan > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Sean Broeder > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, --Qifan
