Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder.
Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that breaks tests. This is about following a basic engineering discipline. We should all do it. D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:47 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human thing > to do mistakes. > > So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to avoid > mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own > personal attitudes, emotions, etc. > > Someone who is interested in contribution usually can find time to make > contribution perfect. > > I'm not aware of project priorities, please share it. I believe different > priorities can co-exist. A number of contributors are fixing tests, so it > is a priority for them, isn't it? So why to add work to that guys because > of you have other priorities? > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:39, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and > we > > didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately. > > > > If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to > > think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to > > apply the some sort rules blindly. We are not robots. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named > configuration > > > finalization. > > > > > > Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing? > > > > > > Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with > passing > > > tests and merge changes? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 8:16, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > Test is going to be fixed in the scope of AI 2.7 [1]. This is not > > > > one-minute fix as there are multiple places where configuration > should > > be > > > > passed, and changes should be covered with tests. I muted the test > for > > > now. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9390 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let's not revert any commits yet. Can we find out who did the > commit > > > and > > > > > why he/she is not fixing the test? > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:21 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about > > > > > > 'IgniteConfigurationParityTest#TestIgniteConfiguration'? > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems it's not hard to fix this test, it's necessary just to > > > implement > > > > > > missing members (at least as stubs) on .NET side in > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration class. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a Jira issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm grateful for contributions made in that area, but it seems > > > folks > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > have time to fix the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'm going to revert commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it is the only way we can keep master more or less > > green. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1888723&tab=buildChangesDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > Dmitry Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
