Great. I've completed the survey.
- R. Niwa
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:19 PM Aakash Jain wrote:
> There were multiple ideas discussed in this thread. I would like to gather
> more data about what do most people prefer. I have sent out a short survey
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:29 AM Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> Yes, I think that this makes more sense than retrying.
> What is the current behavior when a patch introduces substantial
> flakiness? E.g. this scenario:
> - First test run produces 5 failures.
> - Second test run produces 5
Yes, I think that this makes more sense than retrying.
What is the current behavior when a patch introduces substantial flakiness?
E.g. this scenario:
- First test run produces 5 failures.
- Second test run produces 5 different failures.
- Clean re-run produces no failures.
This looks like
We have various layout-tests which are flaky (which sometimes pass and
sometimes fail/crash/timeout). EWS needs to work despite these flaky tests, and
need to be able to tell whether the patch being tested introduced any test
failure or not.
In EWS, we have logic (same logic in
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:05 AM Jiewen Tan wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> There’s a number of mysterious timeouts with 96. Not sure if flakiness or
> The new WebCrypto failures are surprising, but likely real and should be
Mail list logo