Hi Joan,

I’ve seen the Elixir suite implicated more frequently as well. I haven’t done 
the analysis to see if the failures are concentrated in one or two flakes or if 
they’re more evenly distributed. If it’s a small number of  flaky tests I think 
we have time to fix/disable them rather than knocking out the whole suite.

I agree that we need `make check` to be trustworthy in 3.0 release candidates. 
I would like to keep running the elixir tests in the CI regardless of whether 
they’re in the `check` suite. Cheers,

Adam

> On Dec 12, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> As I've been looking more closely at the CI suite for the Jenkins transition, 
> I've noticed that our Elixir test cases are actually the most likely to fail. 
> In 6 consecutive CI runs, 5 runs failed due to failures in the Elixir suite. 
> (The 6th failed due to a JS test failure.)
> 
> We started the Elixir effort to retire the JS suite. We reached a decision 
> some months ago to put it into `make check` so that people would pay 
> attention to its output, and work to fix those tests, accelerating our 
> chances to get rid of the JS suite.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's not materialised. Our Elixir test porters seem to have 
> stopped their work for a while now, and no one is systematically addressing 
> the failures in that suite. I've also heard other developers mention (via 
> IRC) that some of the test cases hold invalid assumptions about how CouchDB 
> works, especially with the Erlang-based clustering code. It sounds to me like 
> the effort needs a full code review.
> 
> With 3.0 around the corner, I want people to be able to trust the output of 
> `make check` when downloading the tarball. If there is no objection, when I 
> merge the Erlang version / CI changes on Monday, I will also comment out the 
> call to `make elixir` as part of make check.
> 
> When the Elixir porting team is more confident in the reliability and 
> completeness of their work, and we can successfully retire the JS suite, we 
> can reconsider.
> 
> -Joan "really wanting to see green, but only seeing red" Touzet

Reply via email to