Re: [cdt-dev] proposal for side-stepping known test failures

[Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Please elaborate. 

You make an an assumption that the tests failures are caused by Windows and not by some other environmental condition. You are absolutely right that the tests have to run on Windows. Since we don't have Hudson on Windows, the only Windows test coverage we get comes from developers who use Windows as their development environment. You proposal would effectively eliminate that test coverage.

What's isn't adequate, IMO, is that the tests are only be exercised (by you and Hudson) on Linux. I'm trying then on Windows and there are failures. My changes won't remove the tests. As I said, they'll allow me and others to avoid tests that aren't stable, on an as-needed basis.

John

-sergey 

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Sergey Prigogin [eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:27 PM

To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] proposal for side-stepping known test failures

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I run the tests with high memory ceilings, too. The only difference I see is OS.

Anyway, the point is there are failures. The failures are not in code I'm sufficiently familiar with, otherwise I'd troubleshoot them. So, I'm going to make them avoidable as per my proposal, unless there are objections.

This is a slippery slope. Please don't consider you testing adequate if you see failures of tests that don't happen on Hudson. 

John

-sergey 

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Sergey Prigogin [eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:57 PM

To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] proposal for side-stepping known test failures

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There are failures in the following plugins when I run the tests locally on my Windows machine. I have the very latest master sources.

 

codan/org.eclipse.cdt.codan.core.test

core/org.eclipse.cdt.core.tests

core/org.eclipse.cdt.ui.tests

These tests work for me on Linux when I run them with -Xmx768m -XX:MaxPermSize=192M

xlc/org.eclipse.cdt.core.lrparser.xlc.tests (*)

These tests were excluded because they were not properly maintained.

 

build/org.eclipse.cdt.make.core.tests (*)

Don't know about these. 

 

I’ll be happy to communicate the details to anyone who’s interested in pursuing them. Note that the last two plugins are not in the Hudson report. Do you know why they’re not being tested?

 

Any test that intermittently fails should be optionally avoidable.

 

John

-sergey 

 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sergey Prigogin
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:23 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] proposal for side-stepping known test failures

 

https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cdt-nightly/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/ shows only two failures, both of which are intermittent. Which test failures are you referring to?

 

-sergey

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The CDT tests appear to have known failures--more than just a handful. This makes it very difficult to detect new failures caused by new changes.

 

I’d like to wrap known failures as follows:

 

                if (System.getProperty("cdt.skip.known.test.failures") == null) {

                                // the failing test

                }

 

This will allow me (and others) to get a clean test run before starting on a set of changes. I can then run the tests again after my changes and immediately find out if I’ve broken anything. Right now, I’d have to manually/visually filter out dozens of known failures from the results, which is very tedious, time consuming and error prone. This is much better than simply commenting out broken tests and putting a “TODO”, as it actually leaves the broken tests active in the codebase.

 

Objections?

John

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

 

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev