Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines


Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines
Jesse Yates 2012-12-29, 19:45
Do we need to add a maven profile that runs the tests locally exactly as we
do them up on the jenkins machines? It would help give some confidence to
the people running the tests that its exactly the same (personally, I find
it annoying to have to go look it up on the build machines to do an exact
match).

Something like a -P jenkins? It would also put source control on how we run
the test/build CI.

Happy do put up a quick patch, if people are interested.

-Jesse
-------------------
Jesse Yates
@jesse_yates
jyates.github.com
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I feel that would be overkill. Test suite runs for a long time. Personally
> I hate to run them locally and have my machine taken over for an hour.
>
> If is passed HadoopQA in trunk and a few relevant tests in 0.94 were run
> (if applicable) I think that is good enough.
>
> If it doesn't pass the 0.94 run we'll find out soon enough. If the test
> suite is stable that is :)
>
>
> The gatekeeper are the release tests, not HadoopQA... IMHO.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines
>
> Since we don't have Hadoop QA for 0.94 patches yet, does it make sense for
> either contributor (patch owner) or the committer who plans to integrate
> the patch to present test suite result before integration ?
>
> There is subtle difference between 0.94 and trunk which may lead to
> unexpected results.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it is not a matter of running the tests N times, but more so on
> > running different platforms. From our builds, what we see most often is
> > that the test runs just fine under CentOS 6, but becomes more flaky under
> > CentOS 5 possibly b/c of thread scheduling differences. Moreover, under
> > windows, the threads are not immediately scheduled to run after start()
> > which causes further race conditions which does not occur so frequently
> > under *nix systems.
> >
> > For 0.94 QA, theoretically we should not this. However in practice I see
> > that if there is a brave soul to work on it, we will find it useful.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If we make it too onerous we'll see fewer contributions especially in
> the
> > > test area. :)
> > >
> >
>