My issue is that about half of my local image tests fail, so its difficult for me to get a baseline... If I have local test that fails before I make changes, I skip those tests and go on...
Instead of having another branch that we need to mess with that will be polluted with failures, it might be nice to somehow instruct one of the test servers to build off another branch that we are ready to have tested. If that passes, then we can merge it into develop. That would encourage people to use branches more often, and may clean up the testing process... -Nick On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/22/14 6:34 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote: > > >Whats the easiest way to request a branch to be tested in Mustella? I > >have > >a few branches that I've not been able to fully test in my local Mustella > >(the changes include tests that have always failed in my local instance. > That's a good question. However, if you've made a check in and there are > new failures in the run that includes your changes, it would be a good > idea to run some of those tests yourself with and without your changes and > if your changes make a difference, consider reverting. > > My email-driven patch testing server was a bit too flaky so I've taken it > down, but now that I've got an Azure machine, I'm considering conjuring up > a web-app driven patch testing server if I ever find time or other > volunteers can pitch in. At Adobe we used a web-app patch testing server. > You visit some URL and submit your patch and you'll get an email back > with the set of failures. > > We could also just set up a branch that folks submit to first and have > jenkins run mustella on that branch, but it still gets messy when several > changes are in a run. > > If anybody wants to help write the web-app for the patch testing server, > let me know. > > -Alex > >
