And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least platform pipeline jobs?
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote: > >>>> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as > >>>>>> part of BFD and got comments for those. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues > >>>>>> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests, > >>>>>> and that we didn't see them after a while. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I > >>>>>> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about > >>>>>> on the CI after having tested them locally. > >>>>>> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on > >>>>>> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for > >>>>>> those to be fixed in a way or another. > >>>>> > >>>>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures > >>>>> changed that much. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I > >>>>>> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the > >>>>>> issues if it's the case. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to > >>>>>> never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate > >>>>>> each of them properly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on > >>>>>> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we > >>>>>> suggested before: > >>>>>> 1. try to repeat locally the failure; > >>>>> > >>>>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is > >>>>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the > >>>>> flickering tests. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle. > >>>>> > >>>>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that. > >>>> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw > >>>> them of the open flickers before closing them. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So first question, do we all agree on that? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it > >>>>>> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas > >>>>>> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or > >>>>>> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to > >>>>>> keep > >>>>>> some information about the liveness of our flickers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So second question, do you agree on that? > >>>>> > >>>>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to > >>>>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test > >>>>> failing again ? > >>>> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible. > >>> > >>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date > >>> of last failure for flicker”? > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old > >> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time. > > > > In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to > > close an issue but as a criteria to not close it. > > ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :) > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Mortagne > -- Thomas Mortagne
