> 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 ;-)
I didn't say that. I said the opposite - that having imperfect tests (or rather tests that cannot be fixed for whatever reason) discourages from looking at test failures and makes one just unsubscribe from the jenkins mails. If this is the case then yes, I think not having a test like that at all is better than having it. > 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. I understand that but these tests have been failing long before those checks were added. I also understand the complexity involved -- like I said, I also tried to fix those tests and failed. > timely manner, it seems like the most logical thing to do is relax the > checks - that maximises test coverage. These thread leak checks are meant to isolate test suites from each other and I think they do a good job at it. > It is bad, but disabling seems even worse, unless we're just not > worried about test code coverage at all. We have different viewpoints on this, sorry. Dawid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
