I'm fixing the flakiness right now. Regards, Tim.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually don't like this change, for several reasons: > > Bumping up some arbitrary limits is not a solution at all, the flakiness > already > came back (see our bots). Note that those tests regularly fail on our bots > for > months now, with more than half a dozen half-hearted repair attempts. This > is > really annoying for the whole team, because you constantly get "you broke > the > build" mails for no good reason. > > The other reason why I don't like the change is that the tests are not > "good > team players" in the unit test sense: Any unit test taking longer than > 100ms > (probably even less) is very bad if you consider the runtime of the whole > suite. > If every test took 500ms and we would be able to perfectly distribute this > on 32 > cores, the suite would take 2min35sec, on a 4 core Laptop almost 21min. > This is > not acceptable, running the whole suite should be in the range of 10-20sec, > otherwise people test even less than they do now. > > The bug tracker has a proposed solution with an increasing timeout, this > should > really be implemented and it should be checked if the typical case is below > 100ms. If this doesn't work out, the test should be done in a fundamentally > different way and if that's not possible we should drop the tests > completely > from our suite, the annoyance-to-usefulness ration is a bit too high... > > https://codereview.chromium.**org/16280011/<https://codereview.chromium.org/16280011/> > -- -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
