I like the idea of creating a blocker issue for a disabled test. This will force us to resolve it in a timely manner and it won't fall through the cracks.
Cheers, Till On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 8:06 AM Jingsong Li <jingsongl...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to Xintong's proposal > > I also have some concerns about unstable cases. > > I think unstable cases can be divided into these types: > > - Force majeure: For example, network timeout, sudden environmental > collapse, they are accidental and can always be solved by triggering azure > again. Committers should wait for the next green azure. > > - Obvious mistakes: For example, some errors caused by obvious reasons may > be repaired quickly. At this time, do we need to wait, or not wait and just > ignore? > > - Difficult questions: These problems are very difficult to find. There > will be no solution for a while and a half. We don't even know the reason. > At this time, we should ignore it. (Maybe it's judged by the author of the > case. But what about the old case whose author can't be found?) > > So, the ignored cases should be the block of the next release until the > reason is found or the case is fixed? We need to ensure that someone will > take care of these cases, because there is no deepening of failed tests, no > one may continue to pay attention to these cases. > > I think this guideline should consider these situations, and show how to > solve them. > > Best, > Jingsong > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks to Xintong for bringing up this topic, I'm +1 in general. > > > > However, I think it's still not very clear how we address the unstable > > tests. > > I think this is a very important part of this new guideline. > > > > According to the discussion above, if some tests are unstable, we can > > manually disable it. > > But I have some questions in my mind: > > 1) Is the instability judged by the committer themselves or by some > > metrics? > > 2) Should we log the disable commit in the corresponding issue and > increase > > the priority? > > 3) What if nobody looks into this issue and this becomes some potential > > bugs released with the new version? > > 4) If no person is actively working on the issue, who should re-enable > it? > > Would it block PRs again? > > > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 10:04, Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks all for the feedback. > > > > > > @Till @Yangze > > > > > > I'm also not convinced by the idea of having an exception for local > > builds. > > > We need to execute the entire build (or at least the failing stage) > > > locally, to make sure subsequent test cases prevented by the failure > one > > > are all executed. In that case, it's probably easier to rerun the build > > on > > > azure than locally. > > > > > > Concerning disabling unstable test cases that regularly block PRs from > > > merging, maybe we can say that such cases can only be disabled when > > someone > > > is actively looking into it, likely the person who disabled the case. > If > > > this person is no longer actively working on it, he/she should enable > the > > > case again no matter if it is fixed or not. > > > > > > @Jing > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > > > > > +1 to provide guidelines on handling test failures. > > > > > > 1. Report the test failures in the JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > +1 on this. Currently, the release managers are monitoring the ci and > > cron > > > build instabilities and reporting them on JIRA. We should also > encourage > > > other contributors to do that for PRs. > > > > > > 2. Set a deadline to find out the root cause and solve the failure for > > the > > > > new created JIRA because we could not block other commit merges for > a > > > long > > > > time > > > > > > > 3. What to do if the JIRA has not made significant progress when > reached > > to > > > > the deadline time? > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about these two. It feels a bit against the voluntary > nature > > > of open source projects. > > > > > > IMHO, frequent instabilities are more likely to be upgraded to the > > critical > > > / blocker priority, receive more attention and eventually get fixed. > > > Release managers are also responsible for looking for assignees for > such > > > issues. If a case is still not fixed soonish, even with all these > > efforts, > > > I'm not sure how setting a deadline can help this. > > > > > > 4. If we disable the respective tests temporarily, we also need a > > mechanism > > > > to ensure the issue would be continued to be investigated in the > > future. > > > > > > > > > > +1. As mentioned above, we may consider disabling such tests iff > someone > > is > > > actively working on it. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:56 PM JING ZHANG <beyond1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Xintong, > > > > +1 to the proposal. > > > > In order to better comply with the rule, it is necessary to describe > > > what's > > > > best practice if encountering test failure which seems unrelated with > > the > > > > current commits. > > > > How to avoid merging PR with test failures and not blocking code > > merging > > > > for a long time? > > > > I tried to think about the possible steps, and found there are some > > > > detailed problems that need to be discussed in a step further: > > > > 1. Report the test failures in the JIRA. > > > > 2. Set a deadline to find out the root cause and solve the failure > for > > > the > > > > new created JIRA because we could not block other commit merges for > a > > > long > > > > time > > > > When is a reasonable deadline here? > > > > 3. What to do if the JIRA has not made significant progress when > > reached > > > to > > > > the deadline time? > > > > There are several situations as follows, maybe different cases > need > > > > different approaches. > > > > 1. the JIRA is non-assigned yet > > > > 2. not found the root cause yet > > > > 3. not found a good solution, but already found the root cause > > > > 4. found a solution, but it needs more time to be done. > > > > 4. If we disable the respective tests temporarily, we also need a > > > mechanism > > > > to ensure the issue would be continued to be investigated in the > > future. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > JING ZHANG > > > > > > > > Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> 于2021年6月23日周三 下午8:16写道： > > > > > > > > > +1 to Xintong's proposal > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:53 PM Till Rohrmann < > trohrm...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would first try to not introduce the exception for local > builds. > > It > > > > > makes > > > > > > it quite hard for others to verify the build and to make sure > that > > > the > > > > > > right things were executed. If we see that this becomes an issue > > then > > > > we > > > > > > can revisit this idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:19 AM Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for appending this to community guidelines for merging PRs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Till Rohrmann > > > > > > > I agree that with this approach unstable tests will not block > > other > > > > > > > commit merges. However, it might be hard to prevent merging > > commits > > > > > > > that are related to those tests and should have been passed > them. > > > > It's > > > > > > > true that this judgment can be made by the committers, but no > one > > > can > > > > > > > ensure the judgment is always precise and so that we have this > > > > > > > discussion thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the unstable tests, how about adding another > exception: > > > > > > > committers verify it in their local environment and comment in > > such > > > > > > > cases? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:23 PM 刘建刚 <liujiangangp...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a good principle to run all tests successfully with any > > > > change. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > means a lot for project's stability and development. I am big > > +1 > > > > for > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > liujiangang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> 于2021年6月22日周二 下午6:36写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way to address the problem of regularly failing tests > > that > > > > > block > > > > > > > > > merging of PRs is to disable the respective tests for the > > time > > > > > being. > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > course, the failing test then needs to be fixed. But at > least > > > > that > > > > > > way > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > would not block everyone from making progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 12:00 PM Arvid Heise < > > ar...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is overall a good idea. So +1 from my side. > > > > > > > > > > However, I'd like to put a higher priority on > > infrastructure > > > > > then, > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > particular docker image/artifact caches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:50 AM Till Rohrmann < > > > > > > trohrm...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this topic to our attention > Xintong. > > I > > > > > think > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > proposal makes a lot of sense and we should follow it. > It > > > > will > > > > > > > give us > > > > > > > > > > > confidence that our changes are working and it might > be a > > > > good > > > > > > > > > incentive > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > quickly fix build instabilities. Hence, +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:12 AM Xintong Song < > > > > > > > tonysong...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the past a couple of weeks, I've observed several > > > times > > > > > that > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > merged without a green light from the CI tests, where > > > > failure > > > > > > > cases > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > considered *unrelated*. This may not always cause > > > problems, > > > > > but > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > increase the chance of breaking our code base. In > fact, > > > it > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > occurred > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > me twice in the past few weeks that I had to revert a > > > > commit > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > breaks > > > > > > > > > > > > the master branch due to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be nicer to enforce a stricter rule, > > > that > > > > no > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > merged without passing CI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problems of merging PRs with "unrelated" test > > > failures > > > > > are: > > > > > > > > > > > > - It's not always straightforward to tell whether a > > test > > > > > > > failures are > > > > > > > > > > > > related or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > - It prevents subsequent test cases from being > > executed, > > > > > which > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > fail > > > > > > > > > > > > relating to the PR changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make things easier for the committers, the > following > > > > > > > exceptions > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > considered acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > - The PR has passed CI in the contributor's personal > > > > > workspace. > > > > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > > > post > > > > > > > > > > > > the link in such cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > - The CI tests have been triggered multiple times, on > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > commit, > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > each stage has at least passed for once. Please also > > > > comment > > > > > in > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we all agree on this, I'd update the community > > > > guidelines > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > merging > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs wrt. this proposal. [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what do you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Merging+Pull+Requests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best, Jingsong Lee >
