On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote: > I don't agree with you here. I think having two or three failures > daily from the same test (and typically with the same message) is far > worse than not having it at all.
Imperfect test coverage is better than no test coverage? Seems like we could simply disable all of our tests and then be happy because they will never fail ;-) Some of these tests fail because of threads left over that are hard to control - we have a lot more moving parts like jetty and zookeeper. Some tests started failing more often because of more stringent checks (like threads left over after a test). If these can't be fixed in a timely manner, it seems like the most logical thing to do is relax the checks - that maximises test coverage. > You get used to having failing tests > and this is bad. A test failure should be a red flag, something you > eagerly look into because you're curious about what happened. I > stopped having that feeling after a while, this seems bad to me. It is bad, but disabling seems even worse, unless we're just not worried about test code coverage at all. -Yonik http://lucidworks.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
