Hi David,
I agree it'll be great if we could distinguish between "flakyFailure" and
"alwaysFailure".
And I also agree we should still show the "flakyFailure" tests because
there could be some potential bugs there.
Thanks for working on it.
Luke
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:57 AM Ismael Juma
Sounds good. I am supportive of this change.
Ismael
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:43 AM David Jacot
wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Yes, you're right. Sorry for the typo.
>
> Hi Ismael,
>
> You're right. Jenkins does not support the flakyFailure element and
> hence the information is not at all in the
Hi Bruno,
Yes, you're right. Sorry for the typo.
Hi Ismael,
You're right. Jenkins does not support the flakyFailure element and
hence the information is not at all in the Jenkins report. I am still
experimenting with printing the flaky tests somewhere. I will update this
thread if I get
Hi David,
Your message didn't make this clear, but you are saying that Jenkins does
_not_ support the flakyFailure element and hence this information will be
completely missing from the Jenkins report. Have we considered including
the flakyFailure information ourselves? I have seen that being
Hi David,
I guess you meant to say
"This does not mean that we should NOT continue our effort to reduce the
number of flaky tests."
I totally agree with what you wrote. I am also +1 on considering all
failures for unit tests.
Best,
Bruno
On 2/12/24 9:11 AM, David Jacot wrote:
Hi folks,
Hi folks,
I have been playing with `reports.junitXml.mergeReruns` setting in gradle
[1]. From the gradle doc:
> When mergeReruns is enabled, if a test fails but is then retried and
succeeds, its failures will be recorded as instead of
, within one . This is effectively the reporting
produced by
