Re: June Community Meeting (Pods with servers + Envoy/Istio side cars) ...

2021-06-08 Thread Shelley Hughes-Godfrey
After watching the recording posted by Alexander for the June geode community meeting, I wondered if the cleanest thing to do is to ensure that "server2" (in the same pod with the Istio/Envoy sidecar that terminates) is also terminated. I know that in our in-house testing, we use a sidecar with

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Mark Hanson
I think the basic problem is that we have too much tech debt in the form of dunit tests. We are proposing all of these "workarounds" to avoid dealing with the core problem. On 6/8/21, 12:09 PM, "Dan Smith" wrote: Would it be possible to just split that test up into multiple classes? It

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Dan Smith
Would it be possible to just split that test up into multiple classes? It sounds like the issue is that there is so many flaky tests in that class that you can't fix them all in one PR, which might indicate it's too big. If we can't get StressNewTest to pass - that means our builds are failing

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Dale Emery
Maybe we can find a way to relax the requirement, or to allow addressing specific situations like the tangle you find yourself in. Removing the requirement altogether feels overly broad. I fear it would allow us to quietly disregard all intermittent test failures, and I think we already

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Jacob Barrett
I think repeated tests shouldn’t be a blocker to merging for the reasons outlined below. A committer that is a good steward for the project should be allowed to make the judgement call when merging a PR. We have placed too many rigid processes in place that eliminated the good judgement of

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Owen Nichols
Thanks Kirk for tackling some of our flakiest tests! I agree, we don't want to discourage anyone interested in paying down tech debt. The Geode community has spoken clearly against bypassing or weakening required PR checks, so relaxing requirements in general might be a tough sell, but I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Mark Hanson
I understand the challenge, but I disagree. It is only through requirement that we keep new flakey tests out. While I don't think one should have to fix all the flaky tests to get their unrelated change in, I think it serves a purpose. IMHO, the problems that you are seeing are indications that

[DISCUSS] Remove stress-new-test-openjdk11 requirement from PRs

2021-06-08 Thread Kirk Lund
Our requirement for stress-new-test-openjdk11 to pass before allowing merge doesn't really work as intended for fixing distributed tests that contain multiple flaky test methods. In fact, I think it causes contributors to avoid tackling flaky tests. I've been working on GEODE-9103: CI Failure: