Is this the case where we have two 'categories'? 1) tests that never worked
2) tests that recently broke I think that a #2 should never persist for more than one build iteration, as either things get fixed or backed out. I suppose then we are really talking about category #1, and that we don't have the "broken window" problem as we never had the window there in the first place? I think it's important to understand this (if it's actually true). geir Tim Ellison wrote: > Nathan Beyer wrote: >> How are other projects handling this? My opinion is that tests, which are >> expected and know to pass should always be running and if they fail and the >> failure can be independently recreated, then it's something to be posted on >> the list, if trivial (typo in build file?), or logged as a JIRA issue. > > Agreed, the tests we have enabled are run on each build (hourly if > things are being committed), and failures are sent to commit list. > >> If it's broken for a significant amount of time (weeks, months), then rather >> than excluding the test, I would propose moving it to a "broken" or >> "possibly invalid" source folder that's out of the test path. If it doesn't >> already have JIRA issue, then one should be created. > > Yes, though I'd be inclined to move it sooner -- tests should not stay > broken for more than a couple of days. > > Recently our breakages have been invalid tests rather than broken > implementation, but they still need to be investigated/resolved. > >> I've been living with consistently failing tests for a long time now. >> Recently it was the unstable Socket tests, but I've been seeing the WinXP >> long file name [1] test failing for months. > > IMHO you should be shouting about it! The alternative is that we > tolerate a few broken windows and overall quality slips. > >> I think we may be unnecessarily complicating some of this by assuming that >> all of the donated tests that are currently excluded and failing are >> completely valid. I believe that the currently excluded tests are either >> failing because they aren't isolated according to the suggested test layout >> or they are invalid test; I suspect that HARMONY-619 [1] is a case of the >> later. >> >> So I go back to my original suggestion, implement the testing proposal, then >> fix/move any excluded tests to where they work properly or determine that >> they are invalid and delete them. > > Yes, the tests do need improvements too. > > Regards, > Tim > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-619 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
