[python-committers] PEP 462: Workflow automation for CPython
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jan 26 02:20:51 CET 2014
On 1/25/2014 2:55 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On sam., 2014-01-25 at 06:35 -0800, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:14 AM, R. David Murray
>> <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 05:49:56 -0800, Eli Bendersky
>> <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > do the latter in Python, which carries a problem we'll
>> probably need to
>> > resolve first - how to know that the bots are green enough.
>> That really
>> > needs human attention.
>>
>>
>> By "that needs human attention", do you mean: dealing with the
>> remaining
>> flaky tests, so that "stable buildbots are green" is a binary
>> decision?
>> We strive for that now, but Nick's proposal would mean we'd
>> have to
>> finally buckle down and complete the work. I'm sure we'd make
>> some new
>> flaky tests at some point, but in this future they'd become
>> show-stoppers
>> until they were fixed. I think this would be a good thing,
>> overall :)
>>
>>
>> Non-flakiness of bots is a holy grail few projects attain. If your
>> bots are consistently green with no flakes, it just means you're not
>> testing enough :-)
>
> There are certainly statistical ways to workaround the "necessary
> flakiness", but that would require someone to sit with a pen and paper a
> bit and figure out what the right metrics should be :-)
If I run the test suit twice and a particular gives different results,
then it is not purely a test of CPython and not-passing is not
necessarily a CPython failure. That to mean that the buildbots should
not be red. Perhaps purple ;-). More seriously, an intermittent timeout
failure might be recorded as an unexpected or perhaps an 'undesired'
skip rather than as a test failure. A test failure should indicate that
CPython needs to be patched, not that the test system, including the
internet, flaked out.
Terry
More information about the python-committers
mailing list