Hi
Am 13.03.19 um 10:03 schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM Sravan K Lakkimsetti
> <sravankumarl@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sravankumarl@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Let me clarify some details here
>
> > (2) All test failures are "immediately" visible to a
> contributor/committer/... while contributing a change so he can
> improve the change before others see the failed tests. That seems to
> involve "waiting" for the SDK build right now and it is not only the
> contributor who sees the failures.
>
> We have gerrit for this specific purpose. Gerrit builds do run
> tests. But the scope is limited to that git repository only. It does
> not run tests from other git repositories. Also the tests run on
> Linux only we don't have facility for running tests on Windows and
> Mac. One of the best practices we use is to get +1 from gerrit build
> before submitting.
Thanks for the clarification!
> Can you please raise a bug and propose you solution?
Oh, I'm still far away from understanding the problem, so I'd rather not
propose a solution. Now that I re-read my mail I see that it sounded
like I'm about to propose a solution. I should have made clearer that I
was looking for (well-)known Buzilla issues related to improving
feedback from the tests where solutions have been proposed already or
solutions are even worked on.
> In this case we are speaking of missing junit test. There is ant.ui test
> that tests ant specific functionality which uncovers swt bug which is
> not covered in swt test suite. Some of us spent multiple months per year
> (for multiple years now) babysitting the tests, reorganizing them,
> moving them to proper repositories so they are executed together with
> code changes not only nightly due to being in different repo, update
> tests to run with latest java versions, new dependencis and so on. It's
> a monster task which requires huge time investment and IMHO this is the
> least desired and appreciated work from contributors.
Ok, cool, so there are people working on this.
In this specific case Xi is looking into tunring it into proper swt test.
Thanks for doing that!
Are there any Bugzilla issues related to larger restructuring of the
tests/build that you known off the top of your head? Or is this rather
done on a day-to-day basis?
In order to create such coordinated issue someone would have to investigate a lot of time to investigate all the tests, taking notes of issues and trying to structure some dependency chain of tasks. No one is doing such thing AFAIK. There are few of us monitoring builds and improving things as we see them. Having someone focus on the test suites and improve their stabililty, coverage and etc would be one of the biggest improvements one can do to Eclipse itself right now (IMHO).
Thanks!
Sebastian
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Sravan
>
> Sravan Kumar Lakkimsetti
> IBM India Pvt Ltd,
> Embassy Golf Links Business Park, D Block,
> Off Indiranagar-Kormangla Inner Ring Road,
> Bangalore - 560071, India
> Phone: 91-80-41776858
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Lohmeier <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:59 PM
> To: platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [platform-dev] Regressions in 4.12
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm glad to see this thread!
>
> Am 12.03.19 um 10:52 schrieb Andrey Loskutov:
> [...]
> > It would be great if the people contributing patches would also
> verify that the patches do not cause new regressions.
> >
> > Please after you have merged something (even if Gerrit is OK),
> consider to verify that your changes do not cause regressions on the
> next day SDK build.
> [...]
>
> (Unfortunately, my insights into the Eclipse build process is
> limited.) For me an ideal build infrastructure would have two
> properties:
> (1) It makes test failures visible (that works already :-) ).
> (2) All test failures are "immediately" visible to a
> contributor/committer/... while contributing a change so he can
> improve the change before others see the failed tests. That seems to
> involve "waiting" for the SDK build right now and it is not only the
> contributor who sees the failures.
>
> Do others feel that (2) should/could be improved here? Does Bugzilla
> have issues for proposing solutions for (2) or even solving (2)? Is
> anyone working on this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sebastian
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-dev mailing list
> platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-dev mailing list
> platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-dev mailing list
> platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
>
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
