Re: Known trillian test failures
While cleaning up the tests is there any value in splitting out tests that are redundant - test that test low level functions whose failures will be picked up in other tests of higher level functions - tests that are run on modules that "never" change. The lower level test may still be useful for testing a change to a low level function or for tracking down a failure in a higher level function that uses a low level routine but may not add much value to a test suite that is run frequently. Would this reduce the amount of time taken to do a full test at the expense of some increased risk that an edge case might be missed? Would setting aside the clutter allow the team to focus on the tests that really matter? Ron On 20/12/2017 1:21 PM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi Marc-Aurèle, (and everyone else) The title probably is slightly incorrect. It should really say known Marvin test failures. Trillian is the automation that creates the environments to run the tests in, the tests are purely those that are in Marvin codebase so anyone can repeat them. In fact we would like to see other people running the tests in their environments and comparing the results. With regard to the failing tests, I agree, that it would be dangerous to hide failures. I would like to see however, a matrix of known good and known bad tests, and any PR that then fails known good tests has a problem. With a visible list of known bad tests we can 'not fail' a PR due to failing a bad test, and also there would be a list of bad tests which the community can attack and whittle down the list until all tests *should* pass. That way we can make clear (automated) decisions on pass/fail. Rather than get a list of pass/fails that we then have to interpret. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Marc-Aurèle Brothier [mailto:ma...@exoscale.ch] Sent: 20 December 2017 12:56 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Known trillian test failures @rhtyd Could something be done to avoid confusing people pushing PR to have trillian test failures, which apparently are know to fail all the time or often? I know it's hard to keep the tests in good shape and make them run smoothly but I find it very disturbing and therefore I have to admit I'm not paying attention to those outputs, sadly. Skipping them adds the high risk of never getting fixed... I would hope that someone having full access the the management & agent's logs could fix them, since AFAIK they aren't available. Cheers -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
RE: Known trillian test failures
Hi Marc-Aurèle, (and everyone else) The title probably is slightly incorrect. It should really say known Marvin test failures. Trillian is the automation that creates the environments to run the tests in, the tests are purely those that are in Marvin codebase so anyone can repeat them. In fact we would like to see other people running the tests in their environments and comparing the results. With regard to the failing tests, I agree, that it would be dangerous to hide failures. I would like to see however, a matrix of known good and known bad tests, and any PR that then fails known good tests has a problem. With a visible list of known bad tests we can 'not fail' a PR due to failing a bad test, and also there would be a list of bad tests which the community can attack and whittle down the list until all tests *should* pass. That way we can make clear (automated) decisions on pass/fail. Rather than get a list of pass/fails that we then have to interpret. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Marc-Aurèle Brothier [mailto:ma...@exoscale.ch] Sent: 20 December 2017 12:56 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Known trillian test failures @rhtyd Could something be done to avoid confusing people pushing PR to have trillian test failures, which apparently are know to fail all the time or often? I know it's hard to keep the tests in good shape and make them run smoothly but I find it very disturbing and therefore I have to admit I'm not paying attention to those outputs, sadly. Skipping them adds the high risk of never getting fixed... I would hope that someone having full access the the management & agent's logs could fix them, since AFAIK they aren't available. Cheers
Re: Known trillian test failures
Hi Marc, You've raised a very valid concern. When we've known list of smoketest failures, it's understandable that most people may not understand how to interpret them and ignore them. Access to the Trillian environment is another issue. I don't have all the answers and a solution ot these problems at the moment but let me discuss that internally and get back to you. Can you and others help review PR 2211 where I've tried to address that? I ask this because this PR not only tries to migrate us to a newer Debian systemvmtemplate but focuses on stabilizing master by getting almost 100% smoketest pass rate on VMware/KVM/XenServer, to get there I had to fix some tests as well. Once we can have such a pass rate on master, it will be easier to verify test results on other PRs against the baseline. I'll see if we can improvement Trillian test runs to include management server (and agent) logs in the marvin log zip that is put as part of the result on the github pr. - Rohit From: Marc-Aur?le Brothier Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:26:05 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Known trillian test failures @rhtyd Could something be done to avoid confusing people pushing PR to have trillian test failures, which apparently are know to fail all the time or often? I know it's hard to keep the tests in good shape and make them run smoothly but I find it very disturbing and therefore I have to admit I'm not paying attention to those outputs, sadly. Skipping them adds the high risk of never getting fixed... I would hope that someone having full access the the management & agent's logs could fix them, since AFAIK they aren't available. Cheers rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
Known trillian test failures
@rhtyd Could something be done to avoid confusing people pushing PR to have trillian test failures, which apparently are know to fail all the time or often? I know it's hard to keep the tests in good shape and make them run smoothly but I find it very disturbing and therefore I have to admit I'm not paying attention to those outputs, sadly. Skipping them adds the high risk of never getting fixed... I would hope that someone having full access the the management & agent's logs could fix them, since AFAIK they aren't available. Cheers
