I went ahead with that, let me know if there are further problems.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:44 AM Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> I think Todd's suggestion may be the most practical. I'm a little
> reluctant purely because it would be easy for someone to accidentally
> disable the tests, e.g. by renamin
I think Todd's suggestion may be the most practical. I'm a little reluctant
purely because it would be easy for someone to accidentally disable the
tests, e.g. by renaming a script. But probably we can live with that.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Quanlong Huang
wrote:
> It's ok. The job succe
It's ok. The job succeeds as expected now :)
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:49 AM Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Perhaps simplest is to just check for the existence of that script, and if
> it doesn't exist, 'exit 0' from the job, so it doesn't get marked failed?
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM T
Perhaps simplest is to just check for the existence of that script, and if
it doesn't exist, 'exit 0' from the job, so it doesn't get marked failed?
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> I'm sorry about that - I should have thought about the 2.x branch! I rolled
> back the confi
I'm sorry about that - I should have thought about the 2.x branch! I rolled
back the config change for now and will come up with a plan to skip the
tests on 2.x.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:24 PM Quanlong Huang
wrote:
> Sorry to be late. Can we skip the ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests job for
> bran
Sorry to be late. Can we skip the ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests job for
branch 2.x or add an option to disable it? Just hit a failure due to this:
https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-verify-dryrun/4064/
https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests/72/console
File ./bin/jenkins/dock
I tested it here:
https://jenkins.impala.io/job/parallel-all-tests-tarmstrong/ and it works
fine, so I made the corresponding change in precommit at
https://jenkins.impala.io/job/parallel-all-tests/jobConfigHistory/showDiffFiles?timestamp1=2019-01-18_01-08-25×tamp2=2019-04-24_18-35-23
Let me know
+1 for turning it on
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:14 PM Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> It's been stable for a while now, with the exception of hitting a flaky
> test that is also flaky on the non-dockerised minicluster (IMPALA-8124) -
> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests/
>
> Are t
It's been stable for a while now, with the exception of hitting a flaky
test that is also flaky on the non-dockerised minicluster (IMPALA-8124) -
https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-dockerised-tests/
Are there any objections to me modifying parallel-all-tests and therefore
precommit to run
+1, thanks for working on this!
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:18 AM Jim Apple wrote:
> I'm in favor. Given the importance of remote reads, I would even be in
> favor of these if it DID extend the critical path.
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM Tim Armstrong
> wrote:
>
> > This is really about te
I'm in favor. Given the importance of remote reads, I would even be in
favor of these if it DID extend the critical path.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> This is really about testing the dockerised minicluster, but gives us
> coverage of remote read code paths for free, an
This is really about testing the dockerised minicluster, but gives us
coverage of remote read code paths for free, and more people care about
that right now.
I got the core end-to-end tests passing locally as part of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7995. That change is up for
review h
12 matches
Mail list logo
