So, I just boil it down to the pragmatic situation where you are in a file that
has some commented tests with “TODO” and in the process of cleaning up the file
you are confronted with what to do about them.
I think the realistic answer is that no one is going to pay down technical
debt, but us.
+1 to Kirk's comments.
Also, regarding (c), using AssumeThat [1] (or, alternatively & IMO
preferrably, [2]) might provide some temporary relief.
[1] https://junit.org/junit4/javadoc/latest/org/junit/Assume.html
[2]
https://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/core-8/api/org/assertj/core/api/Assump
The Geode code base has 328 tests across 145 files with @Ignore. The vast
majority of these were disabled pre-Geode because the previous group's
policy was to disable any test that failed in CI, then file a bug system
ticket, fix it, and re-enable it. However, the process never followed
through bey
Hi Naba,
While I think what you are suggesting sounds reasonable, I think what you are
proposing is a more painful process then leaving them in. I am encountering
maybe two of them at once when addressing a flaky test. If we want to do big
bulk removes then the burden of research becomes les
+1 to Dan's suggestions.
- Remove in batches.
- Send review requests for those PRs to relevant committers (authors of
those tests etc.)
- A brief explanation on why these tests are being deleted, and there is no
loss of test coverage as it is covered by these other tests (or some other
reason).
R
Some of these test have been ignored for a long time. However, looking at
the history, I see we have ignored some tests as recently as in the last
month, for what seem like some questionable reasons.
I'm concerned that this could be a two step process to losing test coverage
- someone who things t
I’m in favor of deleting all except the ones that have JIRA tickets open for
them, like Bruce said.
Also going forward I’d like to see us not be checking in @Ignored tests — just
delete them instead. If we need to get it back we have revision history. Just
my two cents.
Aaron
> On Dec 31, 201
I agree with deleting @Ignored tests except for the few that have JIRA
tickets open for them. There are less than 1/2 dozen of these and we
should consider keeping them since we have a way of tracking them.
On 12/31/19 2:07 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote:
Here are a few things that are true for
+1 to Alexander
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote:
>
> Here are a few things that are true for me or I believe are true in general:
>
> - Our test suite is more flaky than we'd like it to be
> - I don't believe that adding more Unit tests that follow existing
> patter
Here are a few things that are true for me or I believe are true in general:
- Our test suite is more flaky than we'd like it to be
- I don't believe that adding more Unit tests that follow existing
patterns buys us that much. I'd rather see something similar to what some
folks are doi
Hi All,
As part of what I am doing to fix flaky tests, I periodically come across tests
that are @Ignore’d. I am curious what we would like to do with them generally
speaking. We could fix them, which would seem obvious, but we are struggling to
fix flaky tests as it is. We could delete them,
11 matches
Mail list logo
