If we talk blockers nothing more than ensuring we see all tests we want pre-release, IMHO. The other points sound to me like future important improvements that will help us significantly in the flaky test fight.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 at 10:08, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm receptive to that but I wouldn't gate our ability to get 4.1 out the > door based on circle on that. Honestly probably only need to have the > parity of coverage be the blocker for its use in retrospect. > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 1:32 AM, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > I would add an option for generate.sh to detect all changed *Test.java > files, that would be handy imo. > On 28/9/22 4:29, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > So: > > 1. 500 iterations on multiplexer > 2. Augmenting generate.sh to allow providing multiple class names and > generating a single config that'll multiplex all the tests provided > 3. Test parity / pre-release config added on circleci (see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17930), > specifically dtest-large, dtest-offheap, test-large-novnode > > If we get the above 3, are we at a place where we're good to consider > vetting releases on circleci for beta / rc / ga? > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 11:28 AM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > “I have plans on modifying the multiplexer to allow specifying a list of > classes per test target, so we don't have to needlessly suffer with this” > > > That would be great, I was thinking of that the other day too. With that > said I’ll be happy to support you in that effort too :-) > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 at 11:18, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I have plans on modifying the multiplexer to allow specifying a list of > classes per test target, so we don't have to needlessly suffer with this > > This sounds integral to us multiplexing tests on large diffs whether we go > with circle for releases or not and would be a great addition! > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > > 250 iterations isn't enough; I use 500 as a low water mark. > > > I agree that 500 iterations would be a reasonable minimum. We have seen > flaky unit tests requiring far more iterations, but that's not very common. > We could use to 500 iterations as default, and discretionary use a higher > limit in tests that are quick and might be prone to concurrency issues. I > can change the defaults on CirceCI config file if we agree to a new limit, > the current default of 100 iterations is quite arbitrary. > > The test multiplexer allows to either run test individual test methods or > entire classes. It is quite frequent to see tests methods that pass > individually but fail when they are run together with the other tests in > the same class. Because of this, I think that we should always run entire > classes when repeating new or modified tests. The only exception to this > would be Python dtests, which usually are more resource intensive and not > so prone to that type of issues. > > For CI on a patch, run the pre-commit suite and also run multiplexer with > 250 runs on new, changed, or related tests to ensure not flaky > > > The multiplexer only allows to run a single test class per push. This is > ok for fixing existing flakies (its original purpose), and for most minor > changes, but it can be quite inconvenient for testing large patches that > add or modify many tests. For example, the patch for CEP-19 directly > modifies 31 test classes, which means 31 CircleCI config pushes. This > number can be somewhat reduced with some wildcards on the class names, but > the process is still quite inconvenient. I guess that other large patches > will find the same problem. I have plans on modifying the multiplexer to > allow specifying a list of classes per test target, so we don't have to > needlessly suffer with this. > > On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 22:44, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 1:31 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > 250 iterations isn't enough; I use 500 as a low water mark. > > > > Say more here. I originally had it at 500 but neither Mick nor I knew > why and figured we could suss this out on this thread. > > I've seen flakies that passed with less later exhibit at that point. > > > This is also assuming that circle and ASF CI run the same tests, which > > is not entirely true. > > > > +1: we need to fix this. My intuition is the path to getting circle-ci > in parity on coverage is a shorter path than getting ASF CI to 3 green runs > for GA. That consistent w/your perception as well or do you disagree? > > I agree that bringing parity to the coverage will be the shorter path. > > > > >
