Re: "make check" should be optional

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Alfredo Deza wrote:
>> The current "make check" job on pull requests is configured to require
>> a "passing/OK" state to allow a merge.
>>
>> Looking back at the past 100 builds since March 13th, there is roughly a 20%
>> failure rate [0]. This is a similar failure rate for ceph-volume PRs which never
>> hit any make check paths: 6 failures out of the last 25 ceph-volume
>> pull requests have
>> make check failures).
>>
>> These failures in make check means that we must almost always ignore them, and
>> use administrator privilege to merge. This is far from ideal, and further
>> reduces the confidence in the tests.
>>
>> Some of the failures are produced by code that implies a grey area, enough to
>> do a non-zero exit status:
>>
>>     /home/jenkins-build/build/workspace/ceph-pull-requests/src/test/cli/osdmaptool/test-map-pgs.t:
>> failed
>>     --- /home/jenkins-build/build/workspace/ceph-pull-requests/src/test/cli/osdmaptool/test-map-pgs.t
>>     +++ /home/jenkins-build/build/workspace/ceph-pull-requests/src/test/cli/osdmaptool/test-map-pgs.t.err
>>     @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
>>      # it is almost impossible to get the same stats with random and crush
>>      # if they are, it most probably means something went wrong somewhere
>>        $ test "$STATS_CRUSH" != "$STATS_RANDOM"
>>     +  [1]
>>     # Ran 13 tests, 0 skipped, 1 failed.
>
> If this is a nondeterministic test case then we should remove it!
>
> The harder case are the ones that are nondeterministic because of
> environmental conditions.  I think we don't understand the why well enough
> to fix (or skip).

This is kind of what I was looking for as well: the possibility of
start pruning tests that aren't working well for us. Since there seems
to be
a strong interest in just keeping make check around as-is.

I don't know enough of these tests, otherwise I would offer to start
helping here. In the case of ceph-disk, I think in *master* they could
be removed from make check entirely
and rely on ad-hoc ceph-disk testing when targetted PRs show up. That
would reduce a chunk of time that is spent on setting up the ceph-disk
test environment.

>
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux