While agree to require more tests to pass, here are my two coins: 1. This group is named "flaky tests" so I regard it as flaky tests literally. NOT require these tests to pass could be by design. Besides, IIRC some developers keep investigating tests in the flaky test group, try to make them stable, and move out of the flaky test group. This seems the desired approach to resolve flaky tests.
2. Instead of barely "require broker-flaky" test group, do you have a list of tests that fail frequently? Otherwise, we just go back to the situation where we want to exclude it from the required status - it's quite unstable. Best, tison. mattison chao <mattisonc...@apache.org> 于2022年8月22日周一 15:56写道： > Hi all > > Recently, some tests in the `broker-flaky` test group always failed, but > since it doesn't block CI, no one cared for a long time. > > This behaviour causes some test scenarios to go unchecked and risk > introducing some regressions, and I think we need to make this test group > set required. > > e.g. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17163 > > WDYT? > > Best, > Mattison >
