On Thursday, October 7, 2010, Michael Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:33:43 +0100, Graham Binns <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 7 October 2010 19:21, Francis J. Lacoste >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > And additionnally, spot checks seem to indicate that these tests continue >> > to >> > run successfully in subsequent builds. >> > >> > So: >> > >> > a) these tests were not skipped >> > b) they pass in the buildbot environment >> > >> > Another case, where the difference between our dev, production / test >> > environement is hurting us. >> > >> >> Note that the test that I fixed, which is now in devel, was failing >> due to an ordering problem and always passed locally; I'm not sure >> that there's much we can do to avoid those except remind reviewers to >> be vigilant for potential issues. > > Back in the SQLObject days we had a hack that would add "ORDER BY > random()" to any query that didn't have an ORDER BY already. Do we > still have that? Although in this case it seems we had an ORDER BY, > just not a sufficienly discriminating one. Could you add ", random()" > to any query that does have an ORDER BY? >
Wouldn't that just break everything that relied on a specific ordering? > -- > > Separately, it seems this problem may have been perpetuated by simply > changing a doctest to match observed output, and not understanding why > the output had changed. Let's not do that again? [1] > Agreed. In this case, I don't think it was understood just how often BugTask.date_last_modified gets updated. > Cheers, > mwh > > [1] Of course, this is harder if the tests are not clear about what they > are testing and why. Most of you heard me rant about this at the > epic. +1 -- Graham Binns http://grahambinns.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
