Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Željko Filipin]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Jon Robson  wrote:

> This is a follow-up from Dan Duvall's talk today during the metrics
> meeting about voting browser tests.
>

If you did not see it (34:30-44:30):

https://youtu.be/Hy307xn99-c?t=34m26s

Please notice the explanation of release engineering team, by Evil Greg:
Delivering deliverables delivery since our delivery.

I am getting that tattooed. :)

Željko
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Greg Grossmeier]

> In the services team, we found that prominent coverage metrics are a very
> powerful motivator for keeping tests in order. We have set up 'voting'
> coverage reports, which fail the overall tests if coverage falls, and make
> it easy to check which lines aren't covered yet (via coveralls). In all
> repositories we enabled this for, test coverage has since stabilized around
> 80-90%.

We (RelEng), too, are interested in this. Given the nature of our
projects we'll probably need to start this on a case-by-case basis,
(un)fortunately. :)

There's two parts to this (as I see it): informational and enforcement.

Informational:
* "Generate code coverage reports for extensions"
** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T71685
* Add ^^^ to "QA Health scoreboard"
** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108768

Enforcement:
* What Gabriel described above.
** There's no one ticket for tracking this cross repos right now, I'll
create one...
** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T111546

Greg

PS: I didn't mean to, but I forked this thread across wikitech-l and qa
lists (my bcc to wikitech-l didn't make it through mailman, I don't
think). See the other sub-thread on adding @integration test runs on wmf
deploy branch creation at:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/qa/2015-September/thread.html

-- 
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Jon Robson]

Dear Greg, and anyone else that is involved in deployment

This is a follow-up from Dan Duvall's talk today during the metrics
meeting about voting browser tests.

Background:
The reading web team this quarter with the help of Dan Duvall has made
huge strides in our QA infrastructure. The extensions Gather,
MobileFrontend and now the new extension QuickSurveys are all running
browser tests on a per commit basis. A selected set of MobileFrontend
@smoke tests (a selected subset of all he tests) are running in
15minutes on every commit and the entire set of Gather browser tests
is running in around 21minutes. It marginally slows down getting
patches deployed... but I think this is a good thing. The results
speak for themselves.

In the past month (August 4th-September 4th) only 3/33 builds failed
for MobileFrontend's daily smoke test build [1] (all 3 due to issues
with the Jenkins infrastructure). For the full set of tests only 10/33
failed in the Chrome daily build [3], 8 of which were due to tests
being flakey and needing improvement or issues with the Jenkin
infrastructure and the two others serious bugs [4,5] brought about by
work the performance team had been doing that we were able to fix
shortly after.

In Firefox [2] there were only 6 failures and only 2 of these were
serious bugs, again caused by things outside MobileFrontend [4,6]. One
of these was pretty serious - we had started loading JavaScript for
users with legacy browsers such as IE6. These were caught prior to the
daily builds when suddenly our MobileFrontend commits would not merge.

The future!:
Given this success:
1) I would like to see us run @integration tests on core, but I
understand given the number of bugs this might not be feasible so far.
2) We should run @integration tests prior to deployments to the
cluster via the train and communicate out when we have failures (and
make a decision to push broken code)
3) I'd like to see other extensions adopt browser test voting on their
extensions. Please feel free to reach out to me if you need help with
that. The more coverage across our extensions we have, the better.

We really have no excuse going forward to push broken code out to our
users and at the very least we need to be visible to each other when
we are deploying broken code. We have a responsibility to our users.

Thoughts? Reactions? Who's with me?!

[1] 
https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/view/Mobile/job/browsertests-MobileFrontend-SmokeTests-linux-chrome-sauce/
[2] 
https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/view/Mobile/job/browsertests-MobileFrontend-en.m.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org-linux-firefox-sauce/
[3] 
https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/view/Mobile/job/browsertests-MobileFrontend-en.m.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org-linux-chrome-sauce/
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108045
[5] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108191
[6] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T111233

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Pine W]

I just want to say that I appreciate this overview.

Pine
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 09/03/2015 02:45 PM, Jon Robson wrote:

The future!:
Given this success:
1) I would like to see us run @integration tests on core, but I
understand given the number of bugs this might not be feasible so far.
2) We should run @integration tests prior to deployments to the
cluster via the train and communicate out when we have failures (and
make a decision to push broken code)
3) I'd like to see other extensions adopt browser test voting on their
extensions. Please feel free to reach out to me if you need help with
that. The more coverage across our extensions we have, the better.


+100%  I assume #2 should be "make a decision whether to push broken code".

Matt Flaschen


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Gabriel Wicke]

In the services team, we found that prominent coverage metrics are a very
powerful motivator for keeping tests in order. We have set up 'voting'
coverage reports, which fail the overall tests if coverage falls, and make
it easy to check which lines aren't covered yet (via coveralls). In all
repositories we enabled this for, test coverage has since stabilized around
80-90%.

Gabriel

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Steven Walling 
wrote:

> Just to hop on the bandwagon here: this seems like the only sane path going
> forward. One unmentioned benefit is that this is a step toward continuous
> deployment. Having integration tests run on every commit and then block
> when there are failures is pretty much a requirement if Wikimedia ever
> wants to get there.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I just want to say that I appreciate this overview.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



-- 
Gabriel Wicke
Principal Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

[Steven Walling]

Just to hop on the bandwagon here: this seems like the only sane path going
forward. One unmentioned benefit is that this is a step toward continuous
deployment. Having integration tests run on every commit and then block
when there are failures is pretty much a requirement if Wikimedia ever
wants to get there.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM Pine W  wrote:

> I just want to say that I appreciate this overview.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l