I also agree. I think we should create tickets for all failing tests and have the community grab them.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Александр Меньшиков <sharple...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to Aleksey, Alexander and Vyacheslav. > > I suppose that the best option is make issue for every master-failed-test. > And fix them all. > > Floating tests should be normal. I think in most case we can just add > repeating. > > All new test for some not ready future should be marked like "Should be fix > in IGNITE-9999". > > > 2017-02-08 15:23 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > I vote for the master-branche without failed-tests) > > > > I understand that impossible to make it quickly. > > > > We shall aim at this approach. > > > > It will be more comfortable to us to develop. > > > > 2017-02-08 12:17 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would agree with Aleksey. > > > From the CI perspective, failing tests should be the main concern, > > because > > > it prevents a durable development of new features. Also, as Aleksey has > > > noted, developers working on different features could end up fixing the > > > same regressions, chances are - in different ways, resulting in merge > > > conflicts. > > > Having failing base branch, it is not possible to determine the reason > > of a > > > failure from the first sight. > > > All these points impact as the feedback from tests, so the whole > process > > > agility. > > > Ideally, no new feature development should be started based on the > > failing > > > branch. > > > I think we should adopt this approach, otherwise, with growing amount > of > > > features, > > > we will eventually end up spending more time dealing with regressions, > > than > > > developing features. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Alexander > > > > > > 8 февр. 2017 г. 10:50 AM пользователь "ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV" < > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> написал: > > > > > > How could they co-exist ? When you developing some ticket you are > risking > > > introduce bug which is reproduced by already failed test(s). > > > Moreover its time consuming to look up new failed tests when your build > > has > > > completed. > > > The last one, committers who introduced new bugs is responsible for > them > > > and have to fix them, not other ones. > > > There are number of tests which i have to execute to ensure they are > > flaky > > > or permanently failed. For example this one : > > > CacheJdbcPojoStoreTest.testLoadCache() > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 7 февр. 2017 г. в 22:10, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Aleksey, > > > > > > > > Bugs fixing and features development are two processes that usually > > > > co-exist. > > > > > > > > Some of the committer/contributors fix tests/functionality while the > > > > others add new functionality. Someone does both. > > > > > > > > You’re welcomed to start fixing the failing tests. Are there any > > specific > > > > that annoys you most? > > > > > > > > — > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:40 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV < > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We have a lot of failed tests, which is frustrating. Some of them > are > > > > > flaky(floating status randomly goes from succesful to failed) which > > > adds > > > > to > > > > > frustration. Perhaps, we should fix all the tests in first place, > and > > > > then > > > > > continue doing tickets ? > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,* > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey* > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *Best Regards,* > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey* > > > > > >
