[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12277?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Sylvain Lebresne updated CASSANDRA-12277:
-----------------------------------------
       Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version/s: 3.9
                   3.0.9
           Status: Resolved  (was: Patch Available)

bq. Changes are applied, please take another look.

Lgtm, committed (to 3.0+), thanks.

bq. what do you think is a better test in this situation

In that particular situation, fixing the seed problably makes the test a lot 
less valuable so I'm fine with the committed solution.

> Extend testing infrastructure to handle expected intermittent flaky tests - 
> see ReplicationAwareTokenAllocatorTest.testNewCluster
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-12277
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12277
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Joshua McKenzie
>            Assignee: Branimir Lambov
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: test
>             Fix For: 3.0.9, 3.9
>
>
> From an offline discussion:
> bq. The ReplicationAwareTokenAllocatorTest.testNewCluster failure is a flake 
> -- randomness will sometimes (on the order of 1/100) cause it to fail. 
> Extending the ranges to avoid these flakes goes too far and makes the test 
> meaningless.
> bq. How about instead of @flaky/@Ignore which currently indicates a test that 
> intermittently fails but we do not expect it to, we instead use @tries, or 
> @runs, or some annotation that indicates "run this thing N times, if M pass 
> we're good". This would allow us to keep the current "we don't care about 
> these test results (in context of green test board) because intermittent 
> failures are not expected and the test quality needs shoring up" from "we 
> expect this test to fail sometimes in this particular way."



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to