+1 to waiver. We still don't have some kind of @flaky annotation that sequesters tests do we? :)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, at 5:58 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 17:55, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +1 to waiving these. >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 4:49 PM Miklosovic, Stefan >> <stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote: >>> Tickets for the flaky tests are here >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18047 >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18048 >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> >>> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 23:28 >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Some tests are never executed in CI due to their name >>> >>> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or >>> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >>> safe. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> in CASSANDRA-18029, two flaky tests were committed by mistake due to my >>> misunderstanding. We agreed on this thread that we should not commit flaky >>> tests right before rc. So now the rc is technically blocked by them. To >>> unblock it, what is needed is to have a waiver on them. If there is not a >>> waiver, I need to go back to that test and remove the two test methods >>> which are flaky. (In practice they will be probably just @Ignore-ed with >>> comment about flakiness so we can fix them later). >>> >>> Flaky tests are >>> >>> org.apache.cassandra.distributed.test.PaxosRepair2Test.paxosRepairHistoryIsntUpdatedInForcedRepair >>> org.apache.cassandra.distributed.test.PaxosRepair2Test.legacyPurgeRepairLoop >>> >>> >>> +1 to a waiver on these two 4.1 flaky regressions to the RC and GA releases. >>> >>> Thanks for bringing it back to dev@ Stefan. Waivers should be done on dev@ >>> (build/release managers can't be keeping up with every ticket), and dev >>> threads and tickets should be kept (reasonably) in-sync, for the sake of >>> inclusiveness. >>> >>> I believe there will be follow up tickets to address these flakies in 4.1.x >>> ?
