On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2018-03-05 14:14 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]>:
>> Hi pavel
>>
>> when I'm back can you explain to me because I did not get it :).
>
> :) it is simple. If you want to ignore issues that the slice is not
> adding, you need to know which of them to ignore. That's why the
> original monkey run all the validations twice - first time to collect
> a list of failing tests in the fresh unchanged image and then with the
> slice or configuration loaded. So it doubled the issue validation
> time.

It sounds good :)


> There are several alternative strategies like to cache the failing
> test results for every build and use them for validations but the best
> strategy is simply to keep the amount of failing tests in the clean
> image on the zero level and force people to keep the system clean.

Yes!
> The
> original monkey hasn't exposed the list of ignored tests. So it was
> possible that some test was ignored because of a temporal network
> issue but for the second time it failed for o good reason and you even
> didn't know.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Pavel Krivanek
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 2018-03-05 10:54 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 March 2018 at 09:23, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Alistair Grant <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Esteban & Marcus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm getting repeated validation failures for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21431
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the same set of tests that fail each time, and as far as I can
>>>>>>> tell they have nothing to do with the patch I submitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know if this is happening on other tests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw that Saturday but decided to wait till Monday (weekends are 
>>>>>> important..).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: no, I have *no* idea what happened. From one CI run to the next,
>>>>>> suddenly around 160 tests related to Calypso started failing due to a 
>>>>>> missing method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now starting from sometime today, this problem stoped. The last failing 
>>>>>> PR checks
>>>>>> fail due to different reasons…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I have no idea why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And yes, we al know that
>>>>>> 1) the PR checks need more compute power, too slow
>>>>>> 2) we *need* to track down the reason why still *a lot* of times the PR 
>>>>>> fails
>>>>>>   even though it should not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that just keeping a build alive of this kind is a full 
>>>>>> time job.. that
>>>>>> we have nobody doing, so many many people do as much as they can and we
>>>>>> hope it will get better….)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and it was completely unrelated. Your change is for Pharo6...
>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at the failures and it appears that
>>>>>
>>>>> BehaviorTest>>testBehaviorRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitBehavior
>>>>> ClassDescriptionTest>>testClassDescriptionRespectsPolymorphismWithTraitDescription
>>>>> ClassTest>>testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait
>>>>>
>>>>> are all failing due to changes in Fuel - methods were changed from
>>>>> traits to local methods.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, the problem is that the monkey (the contribution checker) fails as 
>>>> soon
>>>> as there are errors even in the main image.
>>>>
>>>> The last Pharo6 has these tests failing, so now all contribution checks for
>>>> Pharo6 fail.
>>>>
>>>> What needs to be done?
>>>>
>>>> -> your change can be accepted as we know it does not fail more fixes
>>>> -> then we need fix the tests in Pharo6
>>>> -> in a perfect world we would update the slice checker to only fail for
>>>> now test failing… (it used to be lille that…).
>>>
>>> I must say that It made the validation two times slower, fragile and
>>> led to the hiding of problems instead of solving them...
>>>
>>> -- Pavel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said: this is a full time job…
>>>>
>>>>         Marcus
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to