+1 Thanks Xintong for drafting this doc.
Best, Yangze Guo On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 5:42 PM JING ZHANG <beyond1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Xintong for giving detailed documentation. > > The best practice for handling test failure is very detailed, it's a good > guidelines document with clear action steps. > > +1 to Xintong's proposal. > > Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> 于2021年6月28日周一 下午4:07写道： > > > Thanks all for the discussion. > > > > Based on the opinions so far, I've drafted the new guidelines [1], as a > > potential replacement of the original wiki page [2]. > > > > Hopefully this draft has covered the most opinions discussed and consensus > > made in this discussion thread. > > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uUbxbgbGErBXtmEjhwVhBWG3i6nhQ0LXs96OlntEYnU/edit?usp=sharing > > > > [2] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Merging+Pull+Requests > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:40 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the clarification Till. +1 for what you have written. > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > pt., 25 cze 2021 o 16:00 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > One quick note for clarification. I don't have anything against builds > > > > running on your personal Azure account and this is not what I > > understood > > > > under "local environment". For me "local environment" means that > > someone > > > > runs the test locally on his machine and then says that the > > > > tests have passed locally. > > > > > > > > I do agree that there might be a conflict of interests if a PR author > > > > disables tests. Here I would argue that we don't have malignant > > > committers > > > > which means that every committer will probably first check the > > respective > > > > ticket for how often the test failed. Then I guess the next step would > > be > > > > to discuss on the ticket whether to disable it or not. And finally, > > after > > > > reaching a consensus, it will be disabled. If we see someone abusing > > this > > > > policy, then we can still think about how to guard against it. But, > > > > honestly, I have very rarely seen such a case. I am also ok to pull in > > > the > > > > release manager to make the final call if this resolves concerns. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:07 AM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for the general idea, however I have concerns about a couple of > > > > details. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > I would counter Till's proposal to ignore local green builds. If > > > > committer > > > > > is merging and closing a PR, with official azure failure, but there > > > was a > > > > > green build before or in local azure it's IMO enough to leave the > > > > message: > > > > > > > > > > > Latest build failure is a known issue: FLINK-12345 > > > > > > Green local build: URL > > > > > > > > > > This should address Till's concern about verification. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I have concerns about disabling tests.* It > > shouldn't > > > be > > > > > the PR author/committer that's disabling a test on his own, as > > that's a > > > > > conflict of interests*. I have however no problems with disabling > > test > > > > > instabilities that were marked as "blockers" though, that should work > > > > > pretty well. But the important thing here is to correctly judge > > bumping > > > > > priorities of test instabilities based on their frequency and current > > > > > general health of the system. I believe that release managers should > > be > > > > > playing a big role here in deciding on the guidelines of what should > > > be a > > > > > priority of certain test instabilities. > > > > > > > > > > What I mean by that is two example scenarios: > > > > > 1. if we have a handful of very frequently failing tests and a > > handful > > > of > > > > > very rarely failing tests (like one reported failure and no another > > > > > occurrence in many months, and let's even say that the failure looks > > > like > > > > > infrastructure/network timeout), we should focus on the frequently > > > > failing > > > > > ones, and probably we are safe to ignore for the time being the rare > > > > issues > > > > > - at least until we deal with the most pressing ones. > > > > > 2. If we have tons of rarely failing test instabilities, we should > > > > probably > > > > > start addressing them as blockers. > > > > > > > > > > I'm using my own conscious and my best judgement when I'm > > > > > bumping/decreasing priorities of test instabilities (and bugs), but > > as > > > > > individual committer I don't have the full picture. As I wrote > > above, I > > > > > think release managers are in a much better position to keep > > adjusting > > > > > those kind of guidelines. > > > > > > > > > > Best, Piotrek > > > > > > > > > > pt., 25 cze 2021 o 08:10 Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for Xintong's proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > For me, resolving problems directly (fixing the infrastructure > > issue, > > > > > > disabling unstable tests and creating blocker JIRAs to track the > > fix > > > > and > > > > > > re-enable them asap, etc.) is (in most cases) better than working > > > > around > > > > > > them (verify locally, manually check and judge the failure as > > > > > "unrelated", > > > > > > etc.), and I believe the proposal could help us pushing those more > > > > "real" > > > > > > solutions forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 10:58, Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating a blocker issue for the manually disabled tests sounds > > > good > > > > to > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Minor: I'm still a bit worried about the commits merged before we > > > fix > > > > > > > the unstable tests can also break those tests. Instead of letting > > > the > > > > > > > assigners keep a look at all potentially related commits, they > > can > > > > > > > maintain a branch that is periodically synced with the master > > > branch > > > > > > > while enabling the unstable test. So that they can catch the > > > breaking > > > > > > > changes asap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 9:52 PM Till Rohrmann < > > > trohrm...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
