Yesterday I tried to add a regression test to existing in security module TestCase, but, found that the TestCase is in exclude list. I had to un-exclude it, run, check my test passes and exclude the TestCase again – it was a little bit inconvenient, besides, my new valid (I believe) regression test will go directly to exclude list after integration...
I see that we are near to decision what to do with failing tests. Am I right that we are at the point of agreement on the following?: There could be two groups of failing tests: *Tests that never passed. *Tests that recently started failing. Test that never passed should be stored in TestCases with suffix "Fail" ( StringFailTest.java for example). They are subject for review and either deletion or fixing or fixing implementation if they find a bug in API implementation. There should be 0 tests that recently started failing. If such test appears it should be fixed within 24h, otherwise, commit which introduced the failure will be rolled back. Right? Thanks, Vladimir On 7/4/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote: > Based on what I've seen of the excluded tests, category 1 is the predominate > case. This could be validated by looking at old revisions in SVN. I'm sure that is true, I'm just saying that the build system 'normal' state is that all enabled tests pass. My concern was over your statement you have had failing tests for months. What is failing for you now? Regards, Tim >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Is this the case where we have two 'categories'? >> >> 1) tests that never worked >> >> 2) tests that recently broke >> >> I think that a #2 should never persist for more than one build >> iteration, as either things get fixed or backed out. I suppose then we >> are really talking about category #1, and that we don't have the "broken >> window" problem as we never had the window there in the first place? >> >> I think it's important to understand this (if it's actually true). >> >> geir >> >> >> Tim Ellison wrote: >>> Nathan Beyer wrote: >>>> How are other projects handling this? My opinion is that tests, which >> are >>>> expected and know to pass should always be running and if they fail and >> the >>>> failure can be independently recreated, then it's something to be >> posted on >>>> the list, if trivial (typo in build file?), or logged as a JIRA issue. >>> Agreed, the tests we have enabled are run on each build (hourly if >>> things are being committed), and failures are sent to commit list. >>> >>>> If it's broken for a significant amount of time (weeks, months), then >> rather >>>> than excluding the test, I would propose moving it to a "broken" or >>>> "possibly invalid" source folder that's out of the test path. If it >> doesn't >>>> already have JIRA issue, then one should be created. >>> Yes, though I'd be inclined to move it sooner -- tests should not stay >>> broken for more than a couple of days. >>> >>> Recently our breakages have been invalid tests rather than broken >>> implementation, but they still need to be investigated/resolved. >>> >>>> I've been living with consistently failing tests for a long time now. >>>> Recently it was the unstable Socket tests, but I've been seeing the >> WinXP >>>> long file name [1] test failing for months. >>> IMHO you should be shouting about it! The alternative is that we >>> tolerate a few broken windows and overall quality slips. >>> >>>> I think we may be unnecessarily complicating some of this by assuming >> that >>>> all of the donated tests that are currently excluded and failing are >>>> completely valid. I believe that the currently excluded tests are >> either >>>> failing because they aren't isolated according to the suggested test >> layout >>>> or they are invalid test; I suspect that HARMONY-619 [1] is a case of >> the >>>> later. >>>> >>>> So I go back to my original suggestion, implement the testing proposal, >> then >>>> fix/move any excluded tests to where they work properly or determine >> that >>>> they are invalid and delete them. >>> Yes, the tests do need improvements too. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-619 >>>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tim Ellison ( [EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
