+1 this is worth doing. I don't know how, though. Yet. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> +1 annotate categories > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Was talking with Eric off-list about a recent test he added. > > > > Over the past two major release lines (1.6 and 1.7), there's been a > > significant level of effort put forth by multiple devs to get the > > integration tests running on "terrible" hardware. This has been a great > > endeavor because our tests have never been more stable and it's even > helped > > us catch bugs that we would have otherwise assumed as transiently failing > > (ACCUMULO-3859 is a great example). > > > > Because we are writing a database, we're always concerned about > > performance regressions, both high-level and low-level. I'd like to > propose > > that we recognize and accept this head-on and try to move these > > specifically "high-load" and "performance related" tests to their own > > execution phase that we can run specifically on nodes that meet the > > necessary preconditions. > > > > Some examples of tests: > > > > DeleteTableDuringSplitIT > > DurabilityIT > > ManySplitIT > > RollWALPerformanceIT > > > > I know we can do some classification of tests via surefire/failsafe which > > should roughly meet our goals (typically via an annotation on the class). > > Thus, we could add a specific flag to a Maven build that would include > this > > subset of tests. > > > > What do people think? Do others also think that this is worth pursuing? > > > > - Josh > > >
