Hi David, Thank you for KIP.
Could we include percentages for each flaky test in quarantined.txt? This would help us prioritize which tests to resolve first. Additionally, I would prefer to add a flaky (JUnit) tag to the source code so we can focus on these tests during development. Thanks, TaiJuWu On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:51 AM TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for this great KIP. > > I really appreciate the goal of this KIP, which aims to stabilize the build > and improve our confidence in CI results. > It addresses a real issue where we've become accustomed to seeing failed > results from CI, and this is definitely not good for the Kafka community. > > I have a question regarding this KIP: > It seems that we need to maintain the `quarantined.txt` files manually, is > that correct? > I'm thinking this could become an issue, especially with the planned > removal of ZK in 4.0, which will undoubtedly bring many changes to our > codebase. > Given that, maintaining the `quarantined.txt` files might become a pain. > It would be nice if we could maintain it programmatically. > > Best Regards, > TengYao > > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> 於 2024年9月19日 週四 上午3:24寫道： > > > hi David > > > > The KIP is beautiful and I do love a rule which makes us handle those > flaky > > seriously. > > > > Regarding the "JUnit Tags", it can bring some benefits to us. > > > > 1. we can retry only the tests having "flaky" annotation. Other non-flaky > > tests should not be retryable > > 2. we don't need to worry that "quarantined.txt" having out-of-date test > > names > > 3. we can require the flaky annotation must have jira link. That means > the > > PR's author must create the jira link for the new flaky > > > > Also, we can add a gradle task to generate "quarantined.txt" file if > needs. > > > > Best, > > Chia-Ping > > > > David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> 於 2024年9月19日 週四 上午12:02寫道： > > > > > Hello, Kafka community! > > > > > > Looking at the last 7 days of GitHub, we have 59 out of 64 trunk builds > > > having flaky tests. Excluding timeouts (a separate issue), only 4 > builds > > > out of the last 7 days have failed due to excess test failures. This is > > > actually a slight improvement when compared with the last 28 days. But > > > still, this is obviously a bad situation to be in. > > > > > > We have previously discussed a few ideas to mitigate the impact that > > flaky > > > tests have on our builds. For PRs, we are actually seeing a lot of > > > successful status checks due to our use of the Develocity test retry > > > feature. However, the blanket use of "testRetry" is a bad practice in > > > my opinion. It makes it far too easy for us to ignore tests that are > only > > > occasionally flaky. It also applies to unit tests which should never be > > > flaky. > > > > > > Another problem is that we are naturally introducing flaky tests as new > > > features (and tests) are introduced. Similar to feature development, it > > > takes some time for tests to mature and stabilize -- tests are code, > > after > > > all. > > > > > > I have written down a proposal for tracking and managing our flaky > > tests. I > > > have written this as a KIP even though this is an internal change. I > did > > so > > > because I would like us to discuss, debate, and solidify a plan -- and > > > ultimately vote on it. A KIP seemed like a good fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1090+Flaky+Test+Management > > > > > > I have back-tested this strategy (as best as I can) to our trunk builds > > > from the last month using data from Develocity (i.e., ge.apache.org). > I > > > looked at two scenarios. The first scenario was simply quarantining > tests > > > with higher than 1% flaky failures, no test re-runs were considered. > The > > > second scenario extends the first by allowing up to 3 total flaky > > failures > > > from non-quarantined tests (tests with less than 1% total flakiness). > > > > > > Total builds: *238* > > > Flaky/Failed builds: *228* > > > Flaky builds scenario 1 (quarantine only): *40* > > > Flaky builds scenario 2 (quarantine + retry): *3* > > > > > > In other words, we can tackle the worst flaky failures with the > > quarantine > > > strategy as described in the KIP and handle the long tail of flaky > > failures > > > with the Develocity retry plugin. If we only had 3 failing trunk builds > > per > > > month to investigate, I'd say we were in pretty good shape :) > > > > > > Let me know what you think! > > > > > > Cheers, > > > David A > > > > > >
