Ivan,
Please check dependencies list now. > On 21 Oct 2018, at 11:39, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ivan, > > I believe every time any suite is added or significantly reconfigured it > should be mentioned in the dev list. > > So we don't need to approve any change by discussion, but keeping community > member posted seems to be really helpful here. > > Currently, I don't know why and which suites were added. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > сб, 20 окт. 2018 г. в 9:25, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Igniters, >> >> On Friday I felt a real inconvenience (pain in ass) with running builds for >> a ticked I worked on [1]. There were two the most frustrating moments: >> 1. Estimated build completion time was 11 hours after the start. >> 2. There are newly added suites which are failing constantly in recent >> runs. >> >> I compared builds count in RunAll chain for mentioned ticked. On Oct 6 >> there were 105 builds, and on Oct 19 where were 113. Then I compared >> differences and found suspicious items. >> >> First of all there were 2 Windows suites PlatformNetCoverage [2] and >> PlatformCWindowsX86 [3]. Former seems to be something added recently and >> latter as I know was decided to be excluded from RunAll some time ago but >> strangely reappeared. I suspect that these 2 suites could increase build >> run time because they are quite lengthy and require Windows slaves which >> are in limited amount. >> >> Also there were 2 rather problematic builds InspectionsAop [4] and >> InspectionsCore [5] which seems to fail constantly. Presence of such builds >> brings a noise into analyzing build results. TC Bot treats them as possible >> blockers. >> >> So, here are my suggestions: >> 1. A contributor should add new build to RunAll after estimating build >> running time impact carefully. If impact is noticeable such builds should >> be announced and discussed on dev list. It sounds good idea to test drive >> new heavy build running it on a scheduled basis first before adding to >> RunAll. >> 2. We should not have constantly failing builds like mentioned Inspections. >> >> What are your thoughts? >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5935 >> [2] >> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNetCoverage >> [3] >> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformCWindowsX86 >> [4] >> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop >> [5] >> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Ivan Pavlukhin >>
