pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp QA status

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp QA status
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:53:45 +1000
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0mporbdedv.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <5767A046.3030207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mporbdedv.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
On 21/06/16 02:16, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

kenj wrote:

[...]
666 remains a royal pain in the backside
[...]

Several of the pending patches on pcpfans.git fche/pmfuntools (nee
fche/multithread) were written 5-7 weeks ago to improve this.

Thanks for the pointer Frank. These commits have been merged now (based on a quick inspection of the commit history in the two trees) and on the one machine I've tried, qa/666 has passed 3/3 attempts ... so that's very encouraging.

As one who spends more time debugging other people's qa tests than anyone else (which is not related to 666 but is a more general statement), it is however a bit perplexing that 666 runs for more than five minutes, especially as the rest of the QA suite has running times where 90% of the tests complete in less than 20 seconds and 98% of them are done inside 100 seconds.

As a general rule, fault isolation and debugging would be assisted by tests that have narrow focus, even if this means multiple tests to provide coverage for a complex piece of functionality ... I am not suggesting refactoring 666, just pointing out my preference for others developing new tests.

Back to my other 100+ failures ...

Cheers, Ken.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>