On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <m...@netbsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 07:08:03PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > a. Allowing re-running to tests to make them pass leads to complacency > with > > how tests are written. > > b. A test is bad if it is not deterministic and running a bad test has > *no* > > value. We are wasting time even if the test runs for a few seconds. > > I agree with your vision for the long term, but my proposal address the > short term situation. But we could use the retry approahc to fuel your > blacklist approach: > > We could immagine a system where the retry feature would cast votes on > individual tests: each time we fail once and succeed on retry, cast > a +1 unreliable for the test. > > After a few days, we will have a wall of shame for unreliable tests, > which could either be fixed or go to the blacklist. > > I do not know what software to use to collect and display the results, > though. Should we have a gerrit change for each test? > This should be the process of adding tests to bad tests list. However, I have run out of time on this one. If someone would like to implement go ahead. I don't see myself trying this any soon. > > -- > Emmanuel Dreyfus > m...@netbsd.org Thanks for the inputs. I have refactored run-tests.sh to use retry option. If run-tests.sh is started with -r flag, failed tests would be run once again and won't be considered as failed if they pass. Note: Adding -r flag to jenkins config is not done yet. I have also implemented a better version of blacklist which complies with requirements from Manu on granularity of bad tests to be OS. Here is the patch: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13393/
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel