On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:52 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> wrote:

> For reference, there are currently 34 unresolved JIRA issues under the
> test-failures component [1].
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6280?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20component%20%3D%20test-failures%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>

And there are 19 labeled with flake or sickbay:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12343195


> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is a a good idea. Some suggestions:
>> - It would be nicer if we can figure out process to act on flaky test
>> more frequently than releases.
>>
>
Any ideas? We could just have some cadence and try to establish the
practice of having a deflake thread every couple of weeks? How about we add
it to release verification as a first step and then continue to discuss?

- Another improvement in the process would be having actual owners of
>> issues rather than auto assigned component owners. A few folks have 100+
>> assigned issues. Unassigning those issues, and finding owners who would
>> have time to work on identified flaky tests would be helpful.
>>
>
Yikes. Two issues here:

 - sounds like Jira component owners aren't really working for us as a
first point of contact for triage
 - a person shouldn't really have more than 5 Jira assigned, or if you get
really loose maybe 20 (I am guilty of having 30 at this moment...)

Maybe this is one or two separate threads?

Kenn


>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:45 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I love this idea. It can easily feel like bugs filed for Jenkins
>>> flakes/failures just get lost if there is no process for looking them over
>>> regularly.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that test failures / flakes all get filed with Fix
>>> Version = whatever release is next. Then at release time we can triage the
>>> list, making sure none might be a symptom of something that should block
>>> the release. One modification to your proposal is that after manual
>>> verification that it is safe to release I would move Fix Version to the
>>> next release instead of closing, unless the issue really is fixed or
>>> otherwise not reproducible.
>>>
>>> For automation, I wonder if there's something automatic already
>>> available somewhere that would:
>>>
>>>  - mark the Jenkins build to "Keep This Build Forever"
>>>  - be *very* careful to try to find an existing bug, else it will be spam
>>>  - file bugs to "test-failures" component
>>>  - set Fix Version to the "next" - right now we have 2.7.1 (LTS), 2.11.0
>>> (next mainline), 3.0.0 (dreamy incompatible ideas) so need the smarts to
>>> choose 2.11.0
>>>
>>> If not, I think doing this stuff manually is not that bad, assuming we
>>> can stay fairly green.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sam Rohde <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of tests in our system that are either flaky or
>>>> permanently red. I am suggesting to add, if not all, then most of the tests
>>>> (style, unit, integration, etc) to the release validation step. In this
>>>> way, we will add a regular cadence to ensuring greenness and no flaky tests
>>>> in Beam.
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of ways of implementing this, but what I think might
>>>> work the best is to set up a process that either manually or automatically
>>>> creates a JIRA for the failing test and assigns it to a component tagged
>>>> with the release number. The release can then continue when all JIRAs are
>>>> closed by either fixing the failure or manually testing to ensure no
>>>> adverse side effects (this is in case there are environmental issues in the
>>>> testing infrastructure or otherwise).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reading, what do you think?
>>>> - Is there another, easier way to ensure that no test failures go
>>>> unfixed?
>>>> - Can the process be automated?
>>>> - What am I missing?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback
>

Reply via email to