On Friday, 9 February 2018 08:32:20 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 18:17, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> 
wrote:
> > We do have BLACKLISTs this time and I complain every time I see one being
> > added without even an attempt at figuring out what's wrong with the test,
> > or when the match is overly aggressive ("it fails on Ubuntu in the CI, so
> > it must
> It gives me no end of heartburn that we prefer having integrations be
> blocked for days to doing
> over-aggressive blacklisting. Having flaky tests is indistinguishable
> from having no tests at all,
> so it boggles my mind why some of us are so worried about potentially
> over-done blacklists.

I'm not asking someone to spend days figuring out what's wrong. I know it 
takes time.

But I am asking to do a minimal investigation. In most cases of blacklisting, 
the test has been failing for days, if not months. Spending an hour or two to 
understand why it's failing and whether it's something that only happens in 
the CI should be the norm.

One of the consequences of blacklisting is that "out of sight is out of mind". 
We'll never remove those blacklists again and that makes us have a false sense 
of security, that we have tested, when in fact we're just ignoring the 
failures. That is just like the Qt CI back in 2006-2009, which is what I said 
I don't want to get back to.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Reply via email to