Jay, consider this a +1 to remove those if you can get to them before I do.
If this makes the Elixir tests useful again, then it's a good compromise.
-Joan
On 2019-12-13 2:18 a.m., Jay Doane wrote:
I've been trying to merge into master for the last 24+ hours, and have
restarted the build about
I've been trying to merge into master for the last 24+ hours, and have
restarted the build about 10 times so far, but it has yet to pass.
I kept track of failures, and these came up numerous times:
1) test GET /dbname/_design_docs (PartitionDDocTest)
test/elixir/test/partition_ddoc_test.exs
Hi Adam,
As long as someone is working on fixing the Elixir tests, fine. They
*are* failing significantly more often on Jenkins than on Travis, for
what it's worth.
All our work to build a much better setup for Jenkins may be lost if
people don't fix these tests promptly.
Would a suitable
+1
> On Dec 11, 2019, at 8:35 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm working this week with Paul Davis on our new Jenkins CI
> infrastructure, which is coming along nicely. One of the changes I'm
> planning to make is that our PR tests will run against only 3 versions
> of Erlang:
Hi Joan,
I’ve seen the Elixir suite implicated more frequently as well. I haven’t done
the analysis to see if the failures are concentrated in one or two flakes or if
they’re more evenly distributed. If it’s a small number of flaky tests I think
we have time to fix/disable them rather than kno
Hi again,
As I've been looking more closely at the CI suite for the Jenkins
transition, I've noticed that our Elixir test cases are actually the
most likely to fail. In 6 consecutive CI runs, 5 runs failed due to
failures in the Elixir suite. (The 6th failed due to a JS test failure.)
We sta
+1. I think this is useful information to collect on every CI run and
store alongside the run, though keeping in mind we only keep the last
7-10 runs in Jenkins nowadays.
If we need it longer, we should stash the output with the log stasher.
This could allow graphing if someone wants to build
Sure...do you mean just in the release notes, or some tangible change to
rebar.config.script / configure?
-Joan
On 2019-12-12 4:06 p.m., Paul Davis wrote:
+1
The only thought that comes to mind is that it might be useful to
differ in some of our error messages between versions. AFAIK, there's
+1
The only thought that comes to mind is that it might be useful to
differ in some of our error messages between versions. AFAIK, there's
nothing from 19.x that currently would prevent someone from using it.
We just don't have the resources to cover all of the tests and
packaging for it. Which is
Hey all,
I was poking around at Jenkins the other day trying to get a good idea
of how much time we're spending in various parts of the build. It
occurred to me that one good way to at least investigate our eunit
test suite is to parse all of the generated surefire reports. I spent
an hour or so y
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, at 01:35, Joan Touzet wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm working this week with Paul Davis on our new Jenkins CI
> infrastructure, which is coming along nicely. One of the changes I'm
> planning to make is that our PR tests will run against only 3 versions
> of Erlang:
>
> 1. T
11 matches
Mail list logo
