I also agree that ppl don't care of the result of CI anymore even it's real failure. One possible solution is making umbrella ticket, grabbing flaky tests, disabling at first and enabling when it solves. but it assumes we need to do our best to fix the flaky tests. Otherwise, we will lose some tests...
How do you guys think of it? On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'd agree. Is there a course of actions you can propose? Disable all these > tests is a not a long term solution, right? > > > _____________________________ > From: Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com<mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 6:01 PM > Subject: Re: Unstable travis CI recently > To: <dev@zeppelin.apache.org<mailto:dev@zeppelin.apache.org>> > > > > Should we disable these flaky test now ? CI seems become more unstable > recently. It is almost useless for me, I never see a success CI recently. > Here's one screenshot of recent closed PRs. Most of them has CI failure. > IMO, this is pretty bad, especially for new contributors. > > > > [pasted1] > > > > > > Jun Kim <i2r....@gmail.com<mailto:i2r....@gmail.com>>?2016?12?13??? > ??11:27??? > @Hoon Thanks for your information :-) I should use that next time! > > 2016? 12? 13? (?) ?? 8:23, Park Hoon <1am...@gmail.com<mailto:1amb4 > a...@gmail.com>>?? ??: > > > I totally agree with your opinions. I will work on ZEPPELIN-1739, > > ZEPPELIN-1749 first i reported before. > > > > @Jun Kim. So true. We have to wait long time. FYI, we can use our own > > travis CI containers to test (I recently learned also!) by configuring > > your-github-id/zeppelin-repo in travis CI > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jun Kim <i2r....@gmail.com<mailto:i2r. > j...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > I definitely agree with you! > > > > > > I reopened my PR twice recently to pass CI and it wasn't because of me. > > > > > > CI takes about ~40min for a test, so I had to wait 1h and 20min to > write > > a > > > comment after passing CI T_T > > > > > > And the worst of it is that I don't believe CI's result more and more. > > > > > > 2016? 12? 13? (?) ?? 8:10, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com<mailto:zjffd > u...@gmail.com>>?? ??: > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > As you may notice that our travis CI is not stable recently. There's > > many > > > > flaky test, and it waste every developer's time to figure out whether > > the > > > > failure is due to your PR or flaky test. So I think it is time for us > > to > > > > make the CI stable. Here's tickets for all the flaky test. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > 3D%20ZEPPELIN%20AND%20text%20~%20flaky%20and%20status%20!% > > > 3D%20RESOLVED%20ORDER%20%20BY%20status%20ASC%20 > > > > > > > > Fixing the flaky test may take some time and may not easy for some > test > > > but > > > > I think it is worth to do that. And it is better for these people > who > > > > familiar with that particular test case to fix it. What do you guys > > > think ? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > -- > > > Taejun Kim > > > > > > Data Mining Lab. > > > School of Electrical and Computer Engineering > > > University of Seoul > > > > > > -- > Taejun Kim > > Data Mining Lab. > School of Electrical and Computer Engineering > University of Seoul > > > -- 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 http://madeng.net
