Re: CI bugs

2016-10-05 Thread Nabarun Nag
Flaky tags were removed from the following tests after fixes were checked in: GEODE-1731 GEODE-1148 GEODE-1364 GEODE-1804 GEODE-1147 GEODE-1384 For now GEODE-1448 remains flaky, even if the receiver port in use issue was resolved because a pause(1) still remains in the test. The flaky tag

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-04 Thread Kirk Lund
That's awesome. Thanks Nabarun! On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > Hi, > > I removed the flaky tags from the test in the WAN module. I went through > the commits and made sure they had indeed removed the pauses. > > Please do let me know if I have missed

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-04 Thread Anthony Baker
Hi Nabarun, I think we crossed wires. In 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 I added @flaky to a few bugs you just marked as resolved: GEODE-1148 GEODE-1364 GEODE-1384 GEODE-1448 Could you remove the @flaky annotation from these tests? Thanks, Anthony > On Oct 1, 2016, at 5:09 PM,

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-04 Thread Swapnil Bawaskar
+1 On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:58 AM, John Blum wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > Please don't close flaky tickets or remove FlakyTest category unless you > > know of a specific commit revision that makes some timing

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-04 Thread John Blum
+1 On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > Please don't close flaky tickets or remove FlakyTest category unless you > know of a specific commit revision that makes some timing changes to the > test. Unless you replace all the Thread.sleeps with await() calls it's >

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-04 Thread Kirk Lund
Please don't close flaky tickets or remove FlakyTest category unless you know of a specific commit revision that makes some timing changes to the test. Unless you replace all the Thread.sleeps with await() calls it's going to fail again when GC occurs during the test. Just because a test doesn't

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-02 Thread Xiaojian Zhou
GEODE-933 and GEODE-977 are not reproducible either after run 30+ times. So they are not flaky and can be closed for now. On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > 1011, 1062, 1066, 1147 have been run 30+ times without reproduce. So it's > not flaky. I think we

Re: CI bugs

2016-10-02 Thread Xiaojian Zhou
1011, 1062, 1066, 1147 have been run 30+ times without reproduce. So it's not flaky. I think we can close them. If reproduced someday, we can re-open. On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > I reviewed a bunch of CI failures today. I closed out duplicates and

CI bugs

2016-10-01 Thread Anthony Baker
I reviewed a bunch of CI failures today. I closed out duplicates and added the ‘CI’ label to JIRA tickets that were missing it. I just posted a big review to add the FlakyTest category to bugs with non-reproducible failures—pretty much any CI bug that is currently open. Your comments are