Re: [xwiki-devs] [XWiki Day] BFD#223

[Oana-Lavinia Florean]

Results:
https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/Bug%20Fixing%20Day%20223

Thanks,
Lavinia

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:09 AM Oana-Lavinia Florean 
wrote:

> Hello devs,
>
> This Thursday is BFD#223:
> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiDays#HBugfixingday
>
> Our current status is:
> * -19 bugs over 120 days (4 months), i.e. we need to close 19 bugs to have
> created bugs == closed bugs
> * -69 bugs over 365 days (1 year)
> * -133 bugs over 500 days (between 1 and 2 years)
> * -363 bugs over 1600 days (4.3 years)
>
> See https://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10352
>
> Here's the BFD#223 dashboard to follow the progress during the day:
> https://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=14441
>
> Good luck at fixing bugs,
> Lavinia
>


-- 
 *Florean Oana-Lavinia*
*Software Development Engineer Intern*
oana.flor...@xwiki.com 
tel: +40 75 136 7570

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Vincent Massol]

> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:58, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:46 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:42, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
>>> platform pipeline jobs?
>> 
>> We need to first check if we have enough disk space first, it’s going to 
>> consume a lot of it.
> 
> ci.xwiki.org currently use 393G (total, not just Jenkins) and have
> 1.3T available. I check a few history entries of xwiki-platform master
> and the scale seems to be about 70M (90% of which is the log file)
> with something like 10 failing tests so I think we are safe for a
> little while

I hope so because I remember that I had to remove twice the logs for jenkins 
over the summer. It’s a different problem but both use up disk space.

We need to fix the log issue BTW.

Thanks
-Vincent

> 
>> 
>> Also, we would need to monitor closely for perf issues and roll it back if 
>> it doesn’t go well.
> 
> Of course but that's easy.
> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
 
 
 
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  
> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Simon,
>> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
 On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
>> part of BFD and got comments for those.
>> 
>> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker 
>> issues
>> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
>> and that we didn't see them after a while.
>> 
>> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
>> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember 
>> about
>> on the CI after having tested them locally.
>> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
>> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough 
>> for
>> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> 
> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> changed that much.
> 
>> 
>> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, 
>> but I
>> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
>> issues if it's the case.
>> 
>> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact 
>> to
>> never really close them, because we just don't have time to 
>> investigate
>> each of them properly.
>> 
>> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
>> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
>> suggested before:
>>  1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> 
> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> flickering tests.
> 
>>  2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> 
> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
 Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we 
 saw them of the open flickers before closing them.
> 
>> 
>> So first question, do we all agree on that?
>> 
>> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
>> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
>> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
>> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
>> keep
>> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
>> 
>> So second question, do you agree on that?
> 
> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> failing again ?
 My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
>>> 
>>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called 
>>> "Date of last failure for flicker”?
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
>> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long 
>> time.
> 
> In my mind the idea is not so much to use this f

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:46 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:42, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
> >
> > And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
> > platform pipeline jobs?
>
> We need to first check if we have enough disk space first, it’s going to 
> consume a lot of it.

ci.xwiki.org currently use 393G (total, not just Jenkins) and have
1.3T available. I check a few history entries of xwiki-platform master
and the scale seems to be about 70M (90% of which is the log file)
with something like 10 failing tests so I think we are safe for a
little while

>
> Also, we would need to monitor closely for perf issues and roll it back if it 
> doesn’t go well.

Of course but that's easy.

>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Simon,
> 
> > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Hi everyone,
> 
>  reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
>  part of BFD and got comments for those.
> 
>  So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker 
>  issues
>  if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
>  and that we didn't see them after a while.
> 
>  We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
>  could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember 
>  about
>  on the CI after having tested them locally.
>  My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
>  this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough 
>  for
>  those to be fixed in a way or another.
> >>>
> >>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> >>> changed that much.
> >>>
> 
>  Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, 
>  but I
>  don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
>  issues if it's the case.
> 
>  The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact 
>  to
>  never really close them, because we just don't have time to 
>  investigate
>  each of them properly.
> 
>  I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
>  them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
>  suggested before:
>    1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> >>>
> >>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> >>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> >>> flickering tests.
> >>>
>    2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> >>>
> >>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
> >> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we 
> >> saw them of the open flickers before closing them.
> >>>
> 
>  So first question, do we all agree on that?
> 
>  Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
>  will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
>  also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
>  update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
>  keep
>  some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> 
>  So second question, do you agree on that?
> >>>
> >>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> >>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> >>> failing again ?
> >> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> >
> > So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called 
> > "Date of last failure for flicker”?
> 
>  [snip]
> 
>  I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
>  value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long 
>  time.
> >>>
> >>> In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
> >>> close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
> >>
> >> ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Vincent
> >>
> >>>
> 
>  Thanks
>  -Vincent
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Mortagne
>


-- 
Thomas Mo

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Simon Urli]

On 06/09/2019 10:44, Vincent Massol wrote:




On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:42, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:

And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
platform pipeline jobs?


We need to first check if we have enough disk space first, it’s going to 
consume a lot of it.

Also, we would need to monitor closely for perf issues and roll it back if it 
doesn’t go well.


+1 in general, but yeah we have to be careful especially now that we 
have a pretty stable CI :)




Thanks
-Vincent



On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:





On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:


Hi Simon,


On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:

Hi all,

On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:

On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:


Hi everyone,

reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
part of BFD and got comments for those.

So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
and that we didn't see them after a while.

We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
on the CI after having tested them locally.
My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
those to be fixed in a way or another.


Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
changed that much.



Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
issues if it's the case.

The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
each of them properly.

I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
suggested before:
   1. try to repeat locally the failure;


This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
flickering tests.


   2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.


This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.

Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw them of 
the open flickers before closing them.




So first question, do we all agree on that?

Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
some information about the liveness of our flickers.

So second question, do you agree on that?


Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
failing again ?

My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.


So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date of 
last failure for flicker”?


[snip]

I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old value 
will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.


In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.


ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)

Thanks
-Vincent





Thanks
-Vincent




--
Thomas Mortagne





--
Thomas Mortagne




--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Vincent Massol]

> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:42, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
> 
> And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
> platform pipeline jobs?

We need to first check if we have enough disk space first, it’s going to 
consume a lot of it. 

Also, we would need to monitor closely for perf issues and roll it back if it 
doesn’t go well.

Thanks
-Vincent

> 
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
 
 Hi Simon,
 
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
>> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
 
 Hi everyone,
 
 reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
 part of BFD and got comments for those.
 
 So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
 if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
 and that we didn't see them after a while.
 
 We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
 could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
 on the CI after having tested them locally.
 My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
 this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
 those to be fixed in a way or another.
>>> 
>>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
>>> changed that much.
>>> 
 
 Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
 don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
 issues if it's the case.
 
 The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
 never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
 each of them properly.
 
 I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
 them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
 suggested before:
   1. try to repeat locally the failure;
>>> 
>>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
>>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
>>> flickering tests.
>>> 
   2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
>>> 
>>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
>> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw 
>> them of the open flickers before closing them.
>>> 
 
 So first question, do we all agree on that?
 
 Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
 will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
 also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
 update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
 keep
 some information about the liveness of our flickers.
 
 So second question, do you agree on that?
>>> 
>>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
>>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
>>> failing again ?
>> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> 
> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date 
> of last failure for flicker”?
 
 [snip]
 
 I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
 value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.
>>> 
>>> In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
>>> close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
>> 
>> ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>> 
>>> 
 
 Thanks
 -Vincent
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Thomas Mortagne
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

s/why/what/

Not good with mails today...

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:42 AM Thomas Mortagne
 wrote:
>
> And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
> platform pipeline jobs?
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Simon,
> > >>
> > >>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
> >  On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
> > >> part of BFD and got comments for those.
> > >>
> > >> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker 
> > >> issues
> > >> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
> > >> and that we didn't see them after a while.
> > >>
> > >> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
> > >> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember 
> > >> about
> > >> on the CI after having tested them locally.
> > >> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
> > >> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough 
> > >> for
> > >> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> > >
> > > Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> > > changed that much.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, 
> > >> but I
> > >> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
> > >> issues if it's the case.
> > >>
> > >> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact 
> > >> to
> > >> never really close them, because we just don't have time to 
> > >> investigate
> > >> each of them properly.
> > >>
> > >> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
> > >> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
> > >> suggested before:
> > >>1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> > >
> > > This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> > > made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> > > flickering tests.
> > >
> > >>2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> > >
> > > This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
> >  Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we 
> >  saw them of the open flickers before closing them.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So first question, do we all agree on that?
> > >>
> > >> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
> > >> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
> > >> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
> > >> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
> > >> keep
> > >> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> > >>
> > >> So second question, do you agree on that?
> > >
> > > Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> > > indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> > > failing again ?
> >  My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called 
> > >>> "Date of last failure for flicker”?
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
> > >> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long 
> > >> time.
> > >
> > > In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
> > > close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
> >
> > ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> -Vincent
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Mortagne
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne



-- 
Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
platform pipeline jobs?

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
>  On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
> >> part of BFD and got comments for those.
> >>
> >> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
> >> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
> >> and that we didn't see them after a while.
> >>
> >> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
> >> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
> >> on the CI after having tested them locally.
> >> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
> >> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
> >> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> >
> > Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> > changed that much.
> >
> >>
> >> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
> >> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
> >> issues if it's the case.
> >>
> >> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
> >> never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
> >> each of them properly.
> >>
> >> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
> >> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
> >> suggested before:
> >>1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> >
> > This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> > made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> > flickering tests.
> >
> >>2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> >
> > This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
>  Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw 
>  them of the open flickers before closing them.
> >
> >>
> >> So first question, do we all agree on that?
> >>
> >> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
> >> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
> >> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
> >> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
> >> keep
> >> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> >>
> >> So second question, do you agree on that?
> >
> > Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> > indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> > failing again ?
>  My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> >>>
> >>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date 
> >>> of last failure for flicker”?
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
> >> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.
> >
> > In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
> > close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
>
> ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Vincent
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Mortagne
>


-- 
Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:42 AM Thomas Mortagne
 wrote:
>
> And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
> platform pipeline jobs?
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Simon,
> > >>
> > >>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
> >  On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
> > >> part of BFD and got comments for those.
> > >>
> > >> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker 
> > >> issues
> > >> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
> > >> and that we didn't see them after a while.
> > >>
> > >> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
> > >> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember 
> > >> about
> > >> on the CI after having tested them locally.
> > >> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
> > >> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough 
> > >> for
> > >> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> > >
> > > Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> > > changed that much.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, 
> > >> but I
> > >> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
> > >> issues if it's the case.
> > >>
> > >> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact 
> > >> to
> > >> never really close them, because we just don't have time to 
> > >> investigate
> > >> each of them properly.
> > >>
> > >> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
> > >> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
> > >> suggested before:
> > >>1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> > >
> > > This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> > > made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> > > flickering tests.
> > >
> > >>2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> > >
> > > This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
> >  Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we 
> >  saw them of the open flickers before closing them.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So first question, do we all agree on that?
> > >>
> > >> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
> > >> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
> > >> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
> > >> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to 
> > >> keep
> > >> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> > >>
> > >> So second question, do you agree on that?
> > >
> > > Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> > > indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> > > failing again ?
> >  My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called 
> > >>> "Date of last failure for flicker”?
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
> > >> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long 
> > >> time.
> > >
> > > In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
> > > close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
> >
> > ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> -Vincent
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Mortagne
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne



-- 
Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Vincent Massol]

> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Simon,
>> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
 On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
>> part of BFD and got comments for those.
>> 
>> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
>> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
>> and that we didn't see them after a while.
>> 
>> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
>> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
>> on the CI after having tested them locally.
>> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
>> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
>> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> 
> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> changed that much.
> 
>> 
>> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
>> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
>> issues if it's the case.
>> 
>> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
>> never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
>> each of them properly.
>> 
>> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
>> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
>> suggested before:
>>1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> 
> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> flickering tests.
> 
>>2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> 
> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
 Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw 
 them of the open flickers before closing them.
> 
>> 
>> So first question, do we all agree on that?
>> 
>> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
>> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
>> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
>> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
>> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
>> 
>> So second question, do you agree on that?
> 
> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> failing again ?
 My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
>>> 
>>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date of 
>>> last failure for flicker”?
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old 
>> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.
> 
> In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
> close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.

ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)

Thanks
-Vincent

> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Simon Urli]

On 06/09/2019 10:35, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:


Hi Simon,


On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:

Hi all,

On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:

On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:


Hi everyone,

reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
part of BFD and got comments for those.

So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
and that we didn't see them after a while.

We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
on the CI after having tested them locally.
My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
those to be fixed in a way or another.


Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
changed that much.



Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
issues if it's the case.

The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
each of them properly.

I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
suggested before:
 1. try to repeat locally the failure;


This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
flickering tests.


 2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.


This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.

Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw them of 
the open flickers before closing them.




So first question, do we all agree on that?

Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
some information about the liveness of our flickers.

So second question, do you agree on that?


Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
failing again ?

My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.


So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date of 
last failure for flicker”?


[snip]

I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old value 
will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.


In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.



That and I also wanted to propose an update in the release plan for the 
first point:
Verify that no tests are failing on the CI Server (or that failures are 
understood and update their date of last seen failure, see known 
flickering tests).


Thanks
-Vincent






--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol  wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> > On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
> 
>  Hi everyone,
> 
>  reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
>  part of BFD and got comments for those.
> 
>  So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
>  if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
>  and that we didn't see them after a while.
> 
>  We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
>  could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
>  on the CI after having tested them locally.
>  My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
>  this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
>  those to be fixed in a way or another.
> >>>
> >>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> >>> changed that much.
> >>>
> 
>  Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
>  don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
>  issues if it's the case.
> 
>  The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
>  never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
>  each of them properly.
> 
>  I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
>  them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
>  suggested before:
>  1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> >>>
> >>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> >>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> >>> flickering tests.
> >>>
>  2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> >>>
> >>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
> >> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw 
> >> them of the open flickers before closing them.
> >>>
> 
>  So first question, do we all agree on that?
> 
>  Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
>  will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
>  also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
>  update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
>  some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> 
>  So second question, do you agree on that?
> >>>
> >>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> >>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> >>> failing again ?
> >> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> >
> > So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date of 
> > last failure for flicker”?
>
> [snip]
>
> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old value 
> will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.

In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.

>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>


-- 
Thomas Mortagne

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Thomas Mortagne]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:27 AM Simon Urli  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
> >>> part of BFD and got comments for those.
> >>>
> >>> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
> >>> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
> >>> and that we didn't see them after a while.
> >>>
> >>> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
> >>> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
> >>> on the CI after having tested them locally.
> >>> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
> >>> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
> >>> those to be fixed in a way or another.
> >>
> >> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
> >> changed that much.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
> >>> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
> >>> issues if it's the case.
> >>>
> >>> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
> >>> never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
> >>> each of them properly.
> >>>
> >>> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
> >>> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
> >>> suggested before:
> >>> 1. try to repeat locally the failure;
> >>
> >> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
> >> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
> >> flickering tests.
> >>
> >>> 2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
> >>
> >> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
> >
> > Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw
> > them of the open flickers before closing them.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So first question, do we all agree on that?
> >>>
> >>> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
> >>> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
> >>> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
> >>> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
> >>> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
> >>>
> >>> So second question, do you agree on that?
> >>
> >> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
> >> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
> >> failing again ?
> >
> > My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
>
> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date
> of last failure for flicker"?

"Last seen failing" might be more accurate since we don't actually
know when was the last failure.

+1 in general for the field

>
> >
> >>
> >> Other useful and a little more automated tricks not requiring much
> >> tooling:
> >> * increase the currently very low history (10). The reason it's that
> >> low is because of many performances issues we had in the past with old
> >> style jobs but those most probably don't apply anymore so we should
> >> increase the number now IMO (30 ?)
> >
> > +1
> >> * create a pipeline job which execute platform master integration
> >> tests once a day with http://cpulimit.sourceforge.net (looks fun) and
> >> keep a big history but not storing stuff like videos and images (100
> >> ?)
> >>
> >
> > Not sure what you want there: to have a test execution where you master
> > the slowness? to detect all problems we might have because of a slow
> > server?
> >
> >>>
> >>> Final question: for the flickers that I closed today, I relied mainly on
> >>> my memory for the second check and on their age: I closed the older
> >>> ones.
> >>>
> >>> So what should we do on them?
> >>
> >> My concern with them is that the reason you gave to close them (that
> >> you cannot reproduce them locally) was not valid IMO. If you say some
> >> test did not failed since a long time then fine, if what some test is
> >> about has completely been rewritten then fine too but that's not what
> >> you indicated :)
> >
> > I actually say that in my knowledge the test I closed did not failed
> > since a long time. I didn't checked the code for the tests, except for
> > one and I commented about it.
> >
> >>
> >> If your memory is only related tests being checked just before a
> >> release I'm not sure this is good enough.
> >>
> >
> > Not really the case since I check regularly the CI. Now I'm not sure
> > it's good enoug either :) Now as I said, we can reopen also later if
> > needed.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>> On 26/03/2019 10:58, Vincent Massol w

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Vincent Massol]

Hi Simon,

> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
>> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:
 
 Hi everyone,
 
 reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
 part of BFD and got comments for those.
 
 So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
 if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
 and that we didn't see them after a while.
 
 We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
 could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
 on the CI after having tested them locally.
 My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
 this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
 those to be fixed in a way or another.
>>> 
>>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
>>> changed that much.
>>> 
 
 Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
 don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
 issues if it's the case.
 
 The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
 never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
 each of them properly.
 
 I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
 them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
 suggested before:
 1. try to repeat locally the failure;
>>> 
>>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
>>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
>>> flickering tests.
>>> 
 2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
>>> 
>>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
>> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw them 
>> of the open flickers before closing them.
>>> 
 
 So first question, do we all agree on that?
 
 Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
 will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
 also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
 update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
 some information about the liveness of our flickers.
 
 So second question, do you agree on that?
>>> 
>>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
>>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
>>> failing again ?
>> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
> 
> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date of 
> last failure for flicker”?

[snip]

I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old value 
will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long time.

Thanks
-Vincent

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning of flickering tests

[Simon Urli]

Hi all,

On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:



On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli  wrote:


Hi everyone,

reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
part of BFD and got comments for those.

So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker issues
if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
and that we didn't see them after a while.

We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember about
on the CI after having tested them locally.
My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough for
those to be fixed in a way or another.


Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
changed that much.



Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again, but I
don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
issues if it's the case.

The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact to
never really close them, because we just don't have time to investigate
each of them properly.

I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
suggested before:
    1. try to repeat locally the failure;


This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
flickering tests.


    2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.


This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.


Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we saw 
them of the open flickers before closing them.






So first question, do we all agree on that?

Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to keep
some information about the liveness of our flickers.

So second question, do you agree on that?


Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
failing again ?


My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.


So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called "Date 
of last failure for flicker"?






Other useful and a little more automated tricks not requiring much 
tooling:

* increase the currently very low history (10). The reason it's that
low is because of many performances issues we had in the past with old
style jobs but those most probably don't apply anymore so we should
increase the number now IMO (30 ?)


+1

* create a pipeline job which execute platform master integration
tests once a day with http://cpulimit.sourceforge.net (looks fun) and
keep a big history but not storing stuff like videos and images (100
?)



Not sure what you want there: to have a test execution where you master 
the slowness? to detect all problems we might have because of a slow 
server?




Final question: for the flickers that I closed today, I relied mainly on
my memory for the second check and on their age: I closed the older 
ones.


So what should we do on them?


My concern with them is that the reason you gave to close them (that
you cannot reproduce them locally) was not valid IMO. If you say some
test did not failed since a long time then fine, if what some test is
about has completely been rewritten then fine too but that's not what
you indicated :)


I actually say that in my knowledge the test I closed did not failed 
since a long time. I didn't checked the code for the tests, except for 
one and I commented about it.




If your memory is only related tests being checked just before a
release I'm not sure this is good enough.



Not really the case since I check regularly the CI. Now I'm not sure 
it's good enoug either :) Now as I said, we can reopen also later if 
needed.




Thanks,
Simon

On 26/03/2019 10:58, Vincent Massol wrote:




On 26 Mar 2019, at 10:31, Simon Urli  wrote:

Hi everyone,

I was checking our list of flickering tests in JIRA 
(https://jira.xwiki.org/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%20flickering%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC) 
and I noticed that we had somehow old flickering test issue 
concerning test that I've never seen failing.


So I propose we close some of them as inactive: the ones that we 
don't remember having seen for a while. The ideal would be to have 
a mechanism to update the issue when the CI fails on a flicker, but 
it takes time to do properly and it's not a priority.


On the contrary I propose to trust our memory: if we're wrong 
because we have closed a flicker that is stil