+1 to Alexander
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Here are a few things that are true for me or I believe are true in general:
>
> - Our test suite is more flaky than we'd like it to be
> - I don't believe that adding more Unit tests that follow existing
> patterns buys us that much. I'd rather see something similar to what some
> folks are doing with Membership right now where we isolate the code and
> test it more systematically
> - We have other testing gaps: We have benchmarks 👏🎉, but we are still
> lacking coverage in that ares; our community is still lacking HA tests. I'd
> rather fill those than bring back old DUnit tests that are chosen somewhat
> at random.
> - I'd rather be deliberate about what tests we introduce than wholesale
> bring back a set of tests, since any of these re-introduced tests has a
> potential to be flaky. Let's make sure our tests carry their weight.
> - If we delete these tests, we can always go back to a SHA from today
> and bring them back at a later date
> - These tests have been ignored since a very long time and we've shipped
> without them and nobody has missed them enough to bring them back.
>
> Given all the above, my vote is for less noise in our code, which means
> deleting all ignored tests. If we want to keep them, I'd love to hear a
> plan of action on how we bring them back. Having a bunch of dead code helps
> nobody.
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 1:50 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As part of what I am doing to fix flaky tests, I periodically come across
>> tests that are @Ignore’d. I am curious what we would like to do with them
>> generally speaking. We could fix them, which would seem obvious, but we are
>> struggling to fix flaky tests as it is. We could delete them, but those
>> tests were written for a reason (I hope). Or we could leave them. This
>> pollutes searches etc as inactive code requiring upkeep at least.
>>
>> I don’t have an easy answer. Some have suggested deleting them. I tend to
>> lean that direction, but I thought I would consult the community for a
>> broader perspective.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
