I went ahead with that, let me know if there are further problems. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:44 AM Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think Todd's suggestion may be the most practical. I'm a little > reluctant purely because it would be easy for someone to accidentally > disable the tests, e.g. by renaming a script. But probably we can live with > that. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Quanlong Huang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It's ok. The job succeeds as expected now :) >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:49 AM Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Perhaps simplest is to just check for the existence of that script, and >> if >> > it doesn't exist, 'exit 0' from the job, so it doesn't get marked >> failed? >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I'm sorry about that - I should have thought about the 2.x branch! I >> > rolled >> > > back the config change for now and will come up with a plan to skip >> the >> > > tests on 2.x. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:24 PM Quanlong Huang < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Sorry to be late. Can we skip the ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests job >> for >> > > > branch 2.x or add an option to disable it? Just hit a failure due to >> > > this: >> > > > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-verify-dryrun/4064/ >> > > > >> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests/72/console >> > > > >> > > > File ./bin/jenkins/dockerized-impala-bootstrap-and-test.sh is not >> found >> > > in >> > > > branch 2.x so it will finally fail. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Quanlong >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:37 AM Tim Armstrong < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I tested it here: >> > > > > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/parallel-all-tests-tarmstrong/ and >> it >> > > > works >> > > > > fine, so I made the corresponding change in precommit at >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/parallel-all-tests/jobConfigHistory/showDiffFiles?timestamp1=2019-01-18_01-08-25×tamp2=2019-04-24_18-35-23 >> > > > > >> > > > > Let me know if you see any issues. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:19 PM Lars Volker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 for turning it on >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:14 PM Tim Armstrong < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > It's been stable for a while now, with the exception of >> hitting a >> > > > flaky >> > > > > > > test that is also flaky on the non-dockerised minicluster >> > > > > (IMPALA-8124) - >> > > > > > > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests/ >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are there any objections to me modifying parallel-all-tests >> and >> > > > > therefore >> > > > > > > precommit to run this job? I'll wait a couple of days for lazy >> > > > > consensus >> > > > > > > then go ahead. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > Tim >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:03 PM Lars Volker <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1, thanks for working on this! >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:18 AM Jim Apple < >> [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'm in favor. Given the importance of remote reads, I >> would >> > > even >> > > > be >> > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > favor of these if it DID extend the critical path. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM Tim Armstrong < >> > > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This is really about testing the dockerised minicluster, >> > but >> > > > > gives >> > > > > > us >> > > > > > > > > > coverage of remote read code paths for free, and more >> > people >> > > > care >> > > > > > > about >> > > > > > > > > > that right now. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I got the core end-to-end tests passing locally as part >> of >> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7995. That >> > > change >> > > > > is >> > > > > > up >> > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > review here https://gerrit.cloudera.org/c/12639/. The >> next >> > > > step >> > > > > is >> > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > get >> > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > Jenkins job running, which I've been working on. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to run it regularly so we can catch any >> > regressions. >> > > > > > > Initially >> > > > > > > > > > I'll just have it email me when it fails, but after it's >> > > stable >> > > > > > for a >> > > > > > > > > week >> > > > > > > > > > or two I'd like to make it part of the regular set of >> jobs. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > My preference is to run it as part of the precommit >> jobs, >> > in >> > > > > > parallel >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > the Ubuntu 16.04 tests. It should not extend the >> critical >> > > path >> > > > of >> > > > > > > > > precommit >> > > > > > > > > > because it only runs the end-to-end tests. We could >> > > > alternatively >> > > > > > run >> > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > as >> > > > > > > > > > a scheduled post-commit job, but that tends to create >> > > > additional >> > > > > > work >> > > > > > > > > when >> > > > > > > > > > it breaks. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What do people think? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > - Tim >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Todd Lipcon >> > Software Engineer, Cloudera >> > >> >
