> B. Fix the test, but exclude the broken versions of Maven from the range
with a comment explaining why

I sometimes rerun integration tests against released versions of Maven
to validate the tests are still working and I know other developers who
do that too. Having failures would just mean tests are broken and can be
ignored IMHO.

-- 
Regards,
Igor

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, at 06:42 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> We have kind of established a consensus on how to handle the case where
> we
> want to change the specification of how Maven works going forward.
> Specifically, if we decide that the old behaviour of Maven is no longer
> going to be the new behaviour of Maven our procedure in the integration
> tests is as follows:
> 
> 1. Mark the existing tests that are affected as range limited where the
> upper bound is the below the version of Maven that the change in
> behaviour
> will land in
> 2. Create tests of the new behaviour (probably copied from the original
> tests but with the assertions modified and using a range limited where
> the
> lower bound is the version of Maven that the change in behaviour will
> land
> in.
> 
> An example of such a change is
> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/c4365abe20b58b2cbc174de812e43c7741dc10e1
> 
> We now have a more complex case to try and decide how to handle, the
> current attempt to resolve is this diff:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/compare/master...MNG-2199
> 
> However I am somewhat uncomfortable with how that proposed fix to the
> integration tests works.
> 
> So firstly, Christian has identified that the original tests added were
> not
> correctly detecting the failure.
> 
> We have a situation therefore where the integration tests have been
> giving
> false positive results against Maven 3.2.2+
> 
> Therefore, my view is that we should *fix the broken tests* because a
> false
> positive or a false negative is a bug in the tests.
> 
> This would mean that the tests would no longer pass when run against
> 3.2.2-3.3.9, instead they would report the bugs in those versions that we
> shipped due to the bugs in the integration tests.
> 
> If we had a need to release - say security fixes - for those lines, we
> would then have to do one of:
> * ACK the continued failing tests;
> * Run with the integration tests forked from the point in time where the
> previous release on the line was cut; OR
> * Back-port the fixes to those lines
> 
> (assuming we are supporting those lines for security fixes)
> 
> I am fine with any of those three options as those are known issues that
> we
> should really have JIRAs for and be documenting in the release notes, and
> any of those three options would be forcing us to acknowledge the bugs.
> 
> An alternative is to say "those bugs were part of the specification of
> Maven and we have changed the specification of Maven again" which is the
> approach that the current MNG-2199 branch takes.
> 
> I am not happy with that approach as it is an implicit approval of that
> type of usage for the broken versions of Maven. Users could legitimately
> start filing feature requests to "restore" the previous behaviour because
> "it was part of the specification"... fine we can probably bat those
> requests away, but is it helping us with code archeology?
> 
> So, what do we want to do with the case of a test being identified as
> having either a false positive or a false negative against an already
> released version of Maven?
> 
> A. Fix the test and then the test will fail against already released
> versions of Maven
> B. Fix the test, but exclude the broken versions of Maven from the range
> with a comment explaining why
> C. Clone the test, leaving the broken test for the old versions of Maven
> and the new test for new versions of Maven
> D. Something else
> 
> I personally favour A or B (with a slight leaning towards A) and I really
> do not like C for the case of the false-positive / false-negative tests
> 
> If an obvious consensus does not emerge I may have to call a vote, you
> have
> been warned!
> 
> -Stephen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to