You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> on 2015/09/29 21:56:26 UTC
JIRA tickets with label "CI"
I've seen a few JIRA tickets filed against tests that failed in a private
build (of develop without any changes) get labeled with "CI" -- since the
test didn't fail in CI, should we come up with a different label for
apparently spurious failures to indicate unreliable tests that failed
outside of CI?
-Kirk
Re: JIRA tickets with label "CI"
Posted by Darrel Schneider <ds...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to "could be seen in CI"
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Maybe the name "CI" is slightly misleading. I think all we really want is a
> list of all bugs that are due to a failure of an existing dunit/junit test
> (in other words, bugs that can be seen in CI). So I think any failure that
> happens from an existing test should get this label. If you think the label
> should be called something else, that's fine by me.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I've seen a few JIRA tickets filed against tests that failed in a private
> > build (of develop without any changes) get labeled with "CI" -- since the
> > test didn't fail in CI, should we come up with a different label for
> > apparently spurious failures to indicate unreliable tests that failed
> > outside of CI?
> >
> > -Kirk
> >
>
Re: JIRA tickets with label "CI"
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
Maybe the name "CI" is slightly misleading. I think all we really want is a
list of all bugs that are due to a failure of an existing dunit/junit test
(in other words, bugs that can be seen in CI). So I think any failure that
happens from an existing test should get this label. If you think the label
should be called something else, that's fine by me.
-Dan
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I've seen a few JIRA tickets filed against tests that failed in a private
> build (of develop without any changes) get labeled with "CI" -- since the
> test didn't fail in CI, should we come up with a different label for
> apparently spurious failures to indicate unreliable tests that failed
> outside of CI?
>
> -Kirk
>