+1 Best Regard, Jeff Zhang
On 1/19/17, 1:03 AM, "Jongyoul Lee" <jongy...@gmail.com> wrote: >I also agree that ppl don't care of the result of CI anymore even it's >real >failure. One possible solution is making umbrella ticket, grabbing flaky >tests, disabling at first and enabling when it solves. but it assumes we >need to do our best to fix the flaky tests. Otherwise, we will lose some >tests... > >How do you guys think of it? > >On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> >wrote: > >> I'd agree. Is there a course of actions you can propose? Disable all >>these >> tests is a not a long term solution, right? >> >> >> _____________________________ >> From: Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com<mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 6:01 PM >> Subject: Re: Unstable travis CI recently >> To: <dev@zeppelin.apache.org<mailto:dev@zeppelin.apache.org>> >> >> >> >> Should we disable these flaky test now ? CI seems become more unstable >> recently. It is almost useless for me, I never see a success CI >>recently. >> Here's one screenshot of recent closed PRs. Most of them has CI failure. >> IMO, this is pretty bad, especially for new contributors. >> >> >> >> [pasted1] >> >> >> >> >> >> Jun Kim <i2r....@gmail.com<mailto:i2r....@gmail.com>>?2016?12?13??? >> ??11:27??? >> @Hoon Thanks for your information :-) I should use that next time! >> >> 2016? 12? 13? (?) ?? 8:23, Park Hoon <1am...@gmail.com<mailto:1amb4 >> a...@gmail.com>>?? ??: >> >> > I totally agree with your opinions. I will work on ZEPPELIN-1739, >> > ZEPPELIN-1749 first i reported before. >> > >> > @Jun Kim. So true. We have to wait long time. FYI, we can use our own >> > travis CI containers to test (I recently learned also!) by configuring >> > your-github-id/zeppelin-repo in travis CI >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jun Kim >><i2r....@gmail.com<mailto:i2r. >> j...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > > I definitely agree with you! >> > > >> > > I reopened my PR twice recently to pass CI and it wasn't because of >>me. >> > > >> > > CI takes about ~40min for a test, so I had to wait 1h and 20min to >> write >> > a >> > > comment after passing CI T_T >> > > >> > > And the worst of it is that I don't believe CI's result more and >>more. >> > > >> > > 2016? 12? 13? (?) ?? 8:10, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com<mailto:zjffd >> u...@gmail.com>>?? ??: >> > > >> > > > Hi Folks, >> > > > >> > > > As you may notice that our travis CI is not stable recently. >>There's >> > many >> > > > flaky test, and it waste every developer's time to figure out >>whether >> > the >> > > > failure is due to your PR or flaky test. So I think it is time >>for us >> > to >> > > > make the CI stable. Here's tickets for all the flaky test. >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% >> > > 3D%20ZEPPELIN%20AND%20text%20~%20flaky%20and%20status%20!% >> > > 3D%20RESOLVED%20ORDER%20%20BY%20status%20ASC%20 >> > > > >> > > > Fixing the flaky test may take some time and may not easy for some >> test >> > > but >> > > > I think it is worth to do that. And it is better for these people >> who >> > > > familiar with that particular test case to fix it. What do you >>guys >> > > think ? >> > > > Thanks >> > > > >> > > -- >> > > Taejun Kim >> > > >> > > Data Mining Lab. >> > > School of Electrical and Computer Engineering >> > > University of Seoul >> > > >> > >> -- >> Taejun Kim >> >> Data Mining Lab. >> School of Electrical and Computer Engineering >> University of Seoul >> >> >> > > >-- >이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >http://madeng.net
