On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> wrote: > It sounds like the recommendation in this thread is to _always_ use > "ant beast" instead of "tests.iters". Is there _any_ case where > "tests.iters" should be preferred? If not, should we remove support > for "tests.iters" to remove any ambiguity? (Especially since this has > come up on the list a few times...)
tests.iters is significantly faster if your test is really more of a unit test: for example it doesn't suffer the overhead of launching a new JVM for each iteration. but because it shortcuts all this stuff, its also not as thorough, and won't run the test with various class-level fixtures (different codecs/locales/...). So you can run your test with a 100 million iterations and then commit it, only for it to fail instantly in jenkins for those reasons. Personally i don't want to waste-time playing whack-a-mole like that: if i want to beast a test i want to really beast it, so I only use ant beast, and pretend like tests.iters doesn't exist. The last time we brought this up I think its survival was justified by the fact that you can combine it with ant beast to be really efficient (which is indeed true), but its just too fragile for my tastes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
