[PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io>]

Hi All,

Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files rather than pass it without running it.

Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this is a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the flood gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest fails because of your test.

I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be

Let me know what you think..

Thanks,
Mark

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io>]

What help is needed in this effort?

Regards
Naba

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:35 AM Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Alright, so basically it seems like people are not ok with the not
> requiring stressnewtest approach. So I guess that means that we need to
> identify -1s willing to help resolve this problem…
>
> Who would like to help?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> > On Feb 28, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Ernest Burghardt <eb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > -1 to limiting any tests... if there are issues with the tests let's fix
> > that.  we have too many commits coming in with little or no testing over
> > new/changed code, so I can't see how removing any existing test coverage
> as
> > a good idea
> >
> > Best,
> > EB
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:58 AM Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Just to make sure we are clear, I am not suggesting that we disable
> >> stressnewtest, but that we make it not required. It would still run and
> >> provide feedback, but it would not give us an unwarranted green in my
> >> approach.
> >>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 to what Owen said, I don't think disabling *StressNewTest* is a
> >>> good idea.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:35, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -1 to making StressNew not required
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a
> >>>> free pass.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it
> up
> >>>> on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide
> >> whether
> >>>> to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring
> >> the
> >>>> PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an
> >> override
> >>>> (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of
> >> files
> >>>> but carry no risk).
> >>>>
> >>>> One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files
> >>>> touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges
> >> or
> >>>> rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include
> squashing
> >>>> and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve
> spent
> >>>> some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no
> >> success,
> >>>> but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.
> >>>>
> >>>> Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the
> main
> >>>> develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a
> >>>> “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew
> to
> >> the
> >>>> main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that
> passed?).
> >>>>
> >>>> The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit
> >> how
> >>>> long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a
> >> timeout,
> >>>> that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to
> >> use
> >>>> the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g.
> >> stay
> >>>> with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute
> 1250 /
> >>>> <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files
> >> changed,
> >>>> run all tests 25x instead of 50x).
> >>>>
> >>>> While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also
> catch
> >>>> poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.
> >> This
> >>>> may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be
> >>>> polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a
> >>>> “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all
> >> tests,
> >>>> at least once in a while?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files
> >>>> rather than pass it without running it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job
> >>>> that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with
> no
> >>>> work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to
> be
> >>>> tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think
> this
> >> is
> >>>> a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in
> the
> >>>> short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It
> is a
> >>>> bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least
> not
> >>>> give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the
> >> flood
> >>>> gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big
> problem
> >>>> because we can still say that you should not merge if the
> StressNewTest
> >>>> fails because of your test.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than
> >>>> anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me know what you think..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ju@N
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io>]

Alright, so basically it seems like people are not ok with the not requiring stressnewtest approach. So I guess that means that we need to identify -1s willing to help resolve this problem…

Who would like to help?

Thanks,
Mark

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Ernest Burghardt <eb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> -1 to limiting any tests... if there are issues with the tests let's fix
> that.  we have too many commits coming in with little or no testing over
> new/changed code, so I can't see how removing any existing test coverage as
> a good idea
> 
> Best,
> EB
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:58 AM Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
>> Just to make sure we are clear, I am not suggesting that we disable
>> stressnewtest, but that we make it not required. It would still run and
>> provide feedback, but it would not give us an unwarranted green in my
>> approach.
>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 to what Owen said, I don't think disabling *StressNewTest* is a
>>> good idea.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:35, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -1 to making StressNew not required
>>>> 
>>>> +1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a
>>>> free pass.
>>>> 
>>>> Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it up
>>>> on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide
>> whether
>>>> to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring
>> the
>>>> PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an
>> override
>>>> (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of
>> files
>>>> but carry no risk).
>>>> 
>>>> One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files
>>>> touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges
>> or
>>>> rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include squashing
>>>> and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve spent
>>>> some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no
>> success,
>>>> but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.
>>>> 
>>>> Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the main
>>>> develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a
>>>> “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew to
>> the
>>>> main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that passed?).
>>>> 
>>>> The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit
>> how
>>>> long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a
>> timeout,
>>>> that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to
>> use
>>>> the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g.
>> stay
>>>> with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute 1250 /
>>>> <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files
>> changed,
>>>> run all tests 25x instead of 50x).
>>>> 
>>>> While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also catch
>>>> poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.
>> This
>>>> may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be
>>>> polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a
>>>> “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all
>> tests,
>>>> at least once in a while?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files
>>>> rather than pass it without running it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job
>>>> that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no
>>>> work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be
>>>> tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this
>> is
>>>> a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the
>>>> short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a
>>>> bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not
>>>> give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the
>> flood
>>>> gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem
>>>> because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest
>>>> fails because of your test.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than
>>>> anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me know what you think..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ju@N
>> 
>> 

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Ernest Burghardt <eb...@pivotal.io>]

-1 to limiting any tests... if there are issues with the tests let's fix
that.  we have too many commits coming in with little or no testing over
new/changed code, so I can't see how removing any existing test coverage as
a good idea

Best,
EB

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:58 AM Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Just to make sure we are clear, I am not suggesting that we disable
> stressnewtest, but that we make it not required. It would still run and
> provide feedback, but it would not give us an unwarranted green in my
> approach.
>
> > On Feb 28, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to what Owen said, I don't think disabling *StressNewTest* is a
> > good idea.
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:35, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> -1 to making StressNew not required
> >>
> >> +1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a
> >> free pass.
> >>
> >> Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it up
> >> on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide
> whether
> >> to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring
> the
> >> PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an
> override
> >> (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of
> files
> >> but carry no risk).
> >>
> >> One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files
> >> touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges
> or
> >> rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include squashing
> >> and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve spent
> >> some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no
> success,
> >> but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.
> >>
> >> Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the main
> >> develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a
> >> “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew to
> the
> >> main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that passed?).
> >>
> >> The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit
> how
> >> long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a
> timeout,
> >> that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to
> use
> >> the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g.
> stay
> >> with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute 1250 /
> >> <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files
> changed,
> >> run all tests 25x instead of 50x).
> >>
> >> While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also catch
> >> poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.
> This
> >> may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be
> >> polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a
> >> “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all
> tests,
> >> at least once in a while?
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files
> >> rather than pass it without running it.
> >>>
> >>> Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job
> >> that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no
> >> work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be
> >> tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this
> is
> >> a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the
> >> short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a
> >> bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not
> >> give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the
> flood
> >> gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem
> >> because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest
> >> fails because of your test.
> >>>
> >>> I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than
> >> anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
> >>>
> >>> Let me know what you think..
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ju@N
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io>]

Just to make sure we are clear, I am not suggesting that we disable stressnewtest, but that we make it not required. It would still run and provide feedback, but it would not give us an unwarranted green in my approach.

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 to what Owen said, I don't think disabling *StressNewTest* is a
> good idea.
> 
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:35, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
>> -1 to making StressNew not required
>> 
>> +1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a
>> free pass.
>> 
>> Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it up
>> on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide whether
>> to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring the
>> PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an override
>> (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of files
>> but carry no risk).
>> 
>> One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files
>> touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges or
>> rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include squashing
>> and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve spent
>> some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no success,
>> but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.
>> 
>> Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the main
>> develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a
>> “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew to the
>> main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that passed?).
>> 
>> The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit how
>> long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a timeout,
>> that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to use
>> the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g. stay
>> with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute 1250 /
>> <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files changed,
>> run all tests 25x instead of 50x).
>> 
>> While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also catch
>> poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.  This
>> may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be
>> polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a
>> “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all tests,
>> at least once in a while?
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files
>> rather than pass it without running it.
>>> 
>>> Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job
>> that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no
>> work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be
>> tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this is
>> a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the
>> short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a
>> bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not
>> give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the flood
>> gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem
>> because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest
>> fails because of your test.
>>> 
>>> I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than
>> anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
>>> 
>>> Let me know what you think..
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ju@N

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

["Ju@N" <ju...@gmail.com>]

+1 to what Owen said, I don't think disabling *StressNewTest* is a
good idea.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:35, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> -1 to making StressNew not required
>
> +1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a
> free pass.
>
> Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it up
> on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide whether
> to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring the
> PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an override
> (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of files
> but carry no risk).
>
> One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files
> touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges or
> rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include squashing
> and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve spent
> some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no success,
> but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.
>
> Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the main
> develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a
> “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew to the
> main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that passed?).
>
> The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit how
> long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a timeout,
> that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to use
> the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g. stay
> with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute 1250 /
> <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files changed,
> run all tests 25x instead of 50x).
>
> While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also catch
> poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.  This
> may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be
> polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a
> “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all tests,
> at least once in a while?
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files
> rather than pass it without running it.
> >
> > Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job
> that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no
> work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be
> tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this is
> a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the
> short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a
> bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not
> give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the flood
> gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem
> because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest
> fails because of your test.
> >
> > I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than
> anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
> >
> > Let me know what you think..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark
>
>

-- 
Ju@N

Re: [PROPOSAL] StressNewTest in Pull Request Pipeline to be made optional.

[Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>]

-1 to making StressNew not required

+1 to eliminating the current loophole — StressNew should never give a free pass.  

Any time your PR is having trouble passing StressNew, please bring it up on the dev list. We can review on a case-by-case basis and decide whether to try increasing the timeout, changing the repeat count, refactoring the PR, or as an absolute last resort requesting authorization for an override (for example, a change to spotless rules might touch a huge number of files but carry no risk).

One bug we should fix is that StressNew sometimes counts more files touched than really were, especially if you had many commits or merges or rebases on your PR branch.  Possible workarounds there include squashing and/or creating a new PR and/or splitting into multiple PRs.  I’ve spent some time trying to reproduce why files are mis-counted, with no success, but perhaps someone cleverer with git could provide a fix.

Another issue is that StressNew is only in the PR pipeline, not the main develop pipeline.  This feels like an asymmetry where PRs must pass a “higher” standard.  We should consider adding some form of StressNew to the main pipeline as well (maybe compare to the previous SHA that passed?).

The original motivation for the 25-file limit was an attempt to limit how long StressNew might run for.  Since concourse already applies a timeout, that check is unnecessary.  However, a compromise solution might be to use the number of files changed to dial back the number of repeats, e.g. stay with 50 repeats if fewer than 25 files changed, otherwise compute 1250 / <#-files-changed> and do only that many repeats (e.g. if 50 files changed, run all tests 25x instead of 50x).

While StressNew is intended to catch new flaky tests, it can also catch poorly-designed tests that fail just by running twice in the same VM.  This may be a sign that the test does not clean up properly and could be polluting other tests in unexpected ways?  It might be useful to run a “StressNew” with repeats=2 over a much broader scope, maybe even all tests, at least once in a while?


> On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Mark Hanson <mh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Proposal: Force StressNewTest to fail a change with 25 or more files rather than pass it without running it.
> 
> Currently, the StressNewTest job in the pipeline will just pass a job that has more than 25 files changed. It will be marked as green with no work done. There are reasons, relating to run time being too long to be tracked by concourse, so we just let it through as a pass. I think this is a bad signal. I think that this should automatically be a failure in the short term. As a result, I also think it should not be required. It is a bad signal, and I think that by making it a fail, this will at least not give us a false sense of security. I understand that this opens the flood gates so to speak, but I don’t think as a community it is a big problem because we can still say that you should not merge if the StressNewTest fails because of your test.
> 
> I personally find the false sense of security more troubling than anything. Hence the reason, I would like this to be
> 
> Let me know what you think..
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark