Hi Dejan,
I agree that dealing with failures can be harder. The payoff is
having a more complete and maintainable test suite.
However, I have thoughts about making problem determination easier.
The main one is to use a binary chop sort of approach
"delta-debugging" (https://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/dd/) to produce
the shortest test sequence which will reproduce a failure. This
often will lead to an explanation of why the problem occurred.
If a server failure caused the test failure, then the server problem
determination facilities ought to be able to pinpoint the cause
(ideally :-).
Ian
On 01/08/2015 05:30 PM, Dejan Bosanac
wrote:
Hi Ian,
sounds good. The only thing is that it makes a bit harder
for folks to focus on the test failures in this phase (as it
adds randomness). The one thing that I observed is that it’s
a bit hard to deal with failures in general, as it takes an
effort to narrow things down and find what exactly led to
the failure. That’s probably something we can work on in the
future.
_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev
--
Ian Craggs
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx IBM United Kingdom
Paho Project Lead; Committer on Mosquitto
|