Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:55:28 -0700 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Automatically running /usr/tests on stable/10 branch under Jenkins Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_PwAiUTZirAuB7Q4NiY=H3YOJ522qcxoQ7gNvtZ9Lxk0g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <74FE3F75-43D2-4CFC-8B0F-56EF886F4748@gmail.com> References: <CAG=rPVe-hCYiH5YuC%2BrzrucJbHJvEFmik0RAA%2Brq%2BXQ5K_A0Ww@mail.gmail.com> <20141024053636.GH11222@dft-labs.eu> <CAHM0Q_MOLoYGVhVOwAHfxKmMdX8bBK0Y=OoiR0TR=t3kQyYtVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=rPVcRkCtwjNdzO2p6PuMVTLTFh7qKN=pxPVDrE0DM=R_a9w@mail.gmail.com> <81030948-E60F-4AAD-AAF1-16349607917D@gmail.com> <544B46BA.4000008@freebsd.org> <FBD107B5-519F-4BB5-80DD-050E9FE22ABC@gmail.com> <CAHM0Q_O_mr3X7bAZLEDJ78VgBv5yb8Gh2OwiXbiM3-00wYX46g@mail.gmail.com> <74FE3F75-43D2-4CFC-8B0F-56EF886F4748@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 25, 2014, at 13:20, K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>>>> Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as he said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They WILL cause panics and deadlocks, and they may cause data loss too.” >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -Garrett >>>> >>>> Wait, we want to sweep those bugs under the rug? What exactly is wrong with making a test harness that can very easily reproduce a known problem? The chances are that anyone will dive into it once the bug is easily reproducible. >>> >>> Sweeping bugs under the rug is not what I plan on doing; I’m marking these as expected failures, as opposed to having them continually panic a machine. Once a ZFS dev takes a look at the issue and resolves them, then the ZFS dev can remove the “bail” calls I’m adding to the testcases. >> >> Yes, disabling tests that fail leads to an ineffectual test suite. A >> test suite that never has any failures is not very useful. However, >> there are two factors to take in to account in this context: >> a) frequent failures can lead users to stop running a test suite >> leading to further regressions >> b) long-term repeated failures can desensitize users leading them to >> ignore *new* failures facilitating further regressions >> >> Thus it's really a question of what context you're talking about >> running the test suite in. For purposes of Jenkins we want full >> visibility in to what is passing and what is failing and how long this >> has been going on for. > > (seeing as how my other post isn’t in the -testing archives yet..) > Panicking a node (what the tests are doing before last night) and exiting with a non-zero exit code (what I’m making them do with the bail outs in tools/regression/zfs) are both considered test failures. The difference being that I can safely run all of the tests on a production or a test machine without having to panic/reboot the box and I get greater coverage in one fell swoop. If a developer wants they can always delete the lines that bail out of the tests to get the desired panic. I don't think there is a RIGHT answer. I just ask that it be noisy about the choice that's being made. In other words, it should be very explicit that it's running a "safe" subset of the tests because FreeBSD's ZFS can't actually pass all of them, and that there be a flag to enable those of us who want to see the failure to see it without modifying any scripts or config files. A test framework that requires me to muck with settings to run failing tests isn't living up to its full potential. -K
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_PwAiUTZirAuB7Q4NiY=H3YOJ522qcxoQ7gNvtZ9Lxk0g>