git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines


That is already part of the policy although it apparently remained unnoticed:

*If a commit introduces new test failures, the preferred process is to revert the patch, rather than opening a new JIRA to fix the new failures.*

It can be reworded to be stricter... But in any case, we should all enforce it from now on.

-Jesús


On 5/15/18, 3:55 PM, "Sergey Shelukhin" <sergey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    +1. Can we also add something about revert-first policy if some patch
    breaks tests?
    So that it’s ok to revert if the tests aren’t fixed quickly with a
    follow-up.
    
    On 18/5/15, 13:08, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcamacho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    
    >I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an effort to
    >fix the flaky
    >tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot commit,
    >you need
    >to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an additional
    >incentive to
    >make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do not think
    >that
    >improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but rather a
    >responsibility
    >of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get to a
    >clean run, trying to
    >accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block
    >development for
    >weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we can
    >just revert
    >the patch (this is what [2] says btw).
    >
    >The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky. After
    >examining runs
    >for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following categories:
    >- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data size. One
    >possible
    >solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask some
    >environment
    >dependent information.
    >- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see this a
    >lot with
    >TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be rewritten, a
    >possible
    >solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those tests
    >(surefire has
    >a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with), expecting
    >that they
    >pass at least once.
    >
    >Not sure if you have other ideas?
    >
    >-Jesús
    >
    >
    >On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vihang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >
    >    Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and
    >thereby
    >    making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the intermittent
    >the
    >    flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the
    >commits.
    >    
    >    On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <vgarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >wrote:
    >    
    >    > +1
    >    >
    >    > > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfgates@xxxxxxxxx>
    >wrote:
    >    > >
    >    > > +1.
    >    > >
    >    > > Alan.
    >    > >
    >    > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena
    ><sergio.pena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >    > > wrote:
    >    > >
    >    > >> +1
    >    > >>
    >    > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
    >    > >> ghagleitner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >    > >>
    >    > >>> +1
    >    > >>> ________________________________________
    >    > >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariappan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >    > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
    >    > >>> To: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >    > >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>> +1
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sahil@xxxxxxxxx>
    >wrote:
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>>> +1
    >    > >>>>
    >    > >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <
    >    > owen.omalley@xxxxxxxxx
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>>> wrote:
    >    > >>>>
    >    > >>>>> +1
    >    > >>>>>
    >    > >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary
    ><pvary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >    > >> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>
    >    > >>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks
    >for
    >    > >>> taking
    >    > >>>>>> this up all!
    >    > >>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
    >    > >>>>>> jcamacho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original
    >message.
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual,
    >for
    >    > >>> instance
    >    > >>>>>> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only
    >get
    >    > >> worse
    >    > >>>>> than
    >    > >>>>>> it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority
    >(at
    >    > >>> least 3
    >    > >>>>>> votes, more +1s than -1s).
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> Thanks,
    >    > >>>>>>> Jesús
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>> On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"
    ><asherman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >    > >>> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>   +1
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>   On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li
    ><lirui.fudan@xxxxxxxxx>
    >    > >>>>> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>> +1
    >    > >>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
    >    > >>>>>>>> pjayachandran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> +1
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Thanks
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Prasanth
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho
    >    > >> Rodriguez"
    >    > >>> <
    >    > >>>>>>>>> jcamacho@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jcamacho@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that
    >were
    >    > >>>>> failing
    >    > >>>>>>>>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this
    >vote to
    >    > >>>>> gather
    >    > >>>>>>>>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
    >patches
    >    > >>> to
    >    > >>>>>> Hive.
    >    > >>>>>>>>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1
    >should be
    >    > >>>>> obtained
    >    > >>>>>>>>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows
    >    > >>> committing
    >    > >>>>>>>> under
    >    > >>>>>>>>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are
    >as good
    >    > >> as
    >    > >>>>>> having
    >    > >>>>>>>>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce
    >the +1
    >    > >>> from
    >    > >>>>>>>>> testing infra before committing.
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
    >    > >> testing
    >    > >>>>>> infra
    >    > >>>>>>>>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project,
    >and 2)
    >    > >>> we
    >    > >>>>>> will
    >    > >>>>>>>>> have another incentive as a community to create a more
    >robust
    >    > >>> testing
    >    > >>>>>>>>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests
    >that
    >    > >> are
    >    > >>>>> not
    >    > >>>>>>>>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Here is my +1.
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> Jes?s
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> [1]
    >http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
    >    > >>>>>>>>> 
    >mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
    >    > >>>>>>>>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>> --
    >    > >>>>>>>> Best regards!
    >    > >>>>>>>> Rui Li
    >    > >>>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>>
    >    > >>>>>
    >    > >>>>
    >    > >>>>
    >    > >>>>
    >    > >>>> --
    >    > >>>> Sahil Takiar
    >    > >>>> Software Engineer
    >    > >>>> takiar.sahil@xxxxxxxxx | (510) 673-0309
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>>
    >    > >>
    >    >
    >    >
    >    
    >
    >