In addition to it’s test coverage problem, the project has a general
testability problem, and I think it would be more effective to introduce some
testing guidelines and standards that drive incremental improvement of both,
instead of requiring an arbitrary code coverage metric be hit, which doe
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
> How do we plan on verifying #4? Also, root-cause to tie back new code that
> introduces flaky tests (i.e. passes on commit, fails 5% of the time
> thereafter) is a non-trivial pursuit (thinking #2 here), and a pretty
> common problem in this
How do we plan on verifying #4? Also, root-cause to tie back new code that
introduces flaky tests (i.e. passes on commit, fails 5% of the time
thereafter) is a non-trivial pursuit (thinking #2 here), and a pretty
common problem in this environment.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Nate McCall wro
I don't want to lose track of the original idea from François, so
let's do this formally in preparation for a vote. Having this all in
place will make transition to new testing infrastructure more
goal-oriented and keep us more focused moving forward.
Does anybody have specific feedback/discussion
Jeff, thanks for the summary!
I will take a look at the token jira, https://issues.apache.org/
jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13348, since I was working on that recently.
--Dikang.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> Email stuff:
> - We've moved github pull requests notifications from
