On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 25, 2014, at 13:20, K. Macy <km...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>>>> Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as >>>>> he said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They >>>>> WILL cause panics and deadlocks, and they may cause data loss too.” >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -Garrett >>>> >>>> Wait, we want to sweep those bugs under the rug? What exactly is wrong >>>> with making a test harness that can very easily reproduce a known problem? >>>> The chances are that anyone will dive into it once the bug is easily >>>> reproducible. >>> >>> Sweeping bugs under the rug is not what I plan on doing; I’m marking >>> these as expected failures, as opposed to having them continually panic a >>> machine. Once a ZFS dev takes a look at the issue and resolves them, then >>> the ZFS dev can remove the “bail” calls I’m adding to the testcases. >> >> Yes, disabling tests that fail leads to an ineffectual test suite. A >> test suite that never has any failures is not very useful. However, >> there are two factors to take in to account in this context: >> a) frequent failures can lead users to stop running a test suite >> leading to further regressions >> b) long-term repeated failures can desensitize users leading them to >> ignore *new* failures facilitating further regressions >> >> Thus it's really a question of what context you're talking about >> running the test suite in. For purposes of Jenkins we want full >> visibility in to what is passing and what is failing and how long this >> has been going on for. > > (seeing as how my other post isn’t in the -testing archives yet..) > Panicking a node (what the tests are doing before last night) and > exiting with a non-zero exit code (what I’m making them do with the bail outs > in tools/regression/zfs) are both considered test failures. The difference > being that I can safely run all of the tests on a production or a test > machine without having to panic/reboot the box and I get greater coverage in > one fell swoop. If a developer wants they can always delete the lines that > bail out of the tests to get the desired panic.
I don't think there is a RIGHT answer. I just ask that it be noisy about the choice that's being made. In other words, it should be very explicit that it's running a "safe" subset of the tests because FreeBSD's ZFS can't actually pass all of them, and that there be a flag to enable those of us who want to see the failure to see it without modifying any scripts or config files. A test framework that requires me to muck with settings to run failing tests isn't living up to its full potential. -K _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"