On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:04 AM Thomas Jackson <jacksontj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tsqa-lint is intended to pass, but if no one ever looks at the mails then > they never get better. > On Sep 18, 2015 6:34 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 18, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Thomas Jackson <jackso...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > *TL;DR: if you make a commit, and the tests fail-- there is a high > > > probability that your code change broke something. Please take the time > > to > > > figure out if the bug was you or not, and if it isn't let someone > know-- > > > the community can help. TSQA is back on, but tsqa-lint is off for now.* > > > > > > I can understand some of the complaints about tsqa-lint, but the test > is > > > simply a lint check of the test code. If we want to remove that I'm > okay > > > with it, but the intent is to make sure your tests are well formatted > (we > > > already do similar things for the rest of the codebase, so we have > > > precedent). > > > > > > Btw, if tsqa-lint is expected to fail, we should remove it IMO. > > > > — Leif > > > > > Thanks for fixing it. I'm +1 on removing lint if it's not fixable. If it was never right, it shouldn't have been mailing people. Also, it appears that was my commit that broke it, but I had no idea. I guess it just seems to me like it was broken in the beginning and so I ignored the static of the emails and so if it was ever working correctly I didn't notice. I'm all for more testing. I think we should make sure that everyone knows how to run it and fix it though. We did something similar when we put clang-analyzer into Jenkins. It didn't break the build until we had everything cleared up. Then we made it a dependency and so emails mean something. So if we can leave lint emails off until it is passing (or removed) and we can depend on TSQA not being noise then I am good with it being a proper build dependency going forward. Are there any docs on TSQA? Perhaps we should create a wiki page for it? Thanks.
