fix(#126): Improves build time#203
Conversation
…s and narrow builds
|
Can you link to the redundant test? Hard to find on the mobile ;) I also don't feel confident about having ignored test as a solution. Maybe we could evaluate the overlap and decide what to change as part of this PR? |
|
Ignored tests it is a partial solution before we agreed that they are
really redundant. Just that I have not missed something.
El 2 oct. 2017 9:54 p. m., "Bartosz Majsak" <notifications@github.com>
escribió:
… Can you link to the redundant test? Hard to find on the mobile ;) I also
don't feel confident about having ignored test as a solution. Maybe we
could evaluate the overlap and decide what to change as part of this PR?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#203 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABcmYX0jin5DLJizw9evUjQaRrNsGhIIks5soT9ygaJpZM4Pq6RM>
.
|
|
I'm not sure if ignoring the tests is the best solution. Maybe putting these semi-redundant test classes into another test suite that will be executed nightly. But yeah, if we agree on that they are redundant, we can remove them. I believe that we haven't used all possibilities of parallelism. I've been playing with it some time ago - I'll share a link with my work/attempt. |
It is a bug or a none sense test. Failed strategy does not check historical scm data, so this test can be removed because it is testing exactly the same as the other one. |
As I said is a temporal solution until we decide to remove them
In this concrete class of |
|
Check this commit: MatousJobanek@02d9197 I'm combining several things there (the numbers of threads are just example):
The local build see here: https://travis-ci.org/MatousJobanek/smart-testing/builds/282751554 |
|
I'll send it as a PR if you're fine with it... |
|
Of course I am fine, it is our PR initially implemented by me :)
El 3 oct. 2017 4:38 p. m., "Matous Jobanek" <notifications@github.com>
escribió:
… I'll send it as a PR if you're fine with it...
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#203 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABcmYeqzD3Bsp6PJ9lcDgtZb64i-emM0ks5sokbWgaJpZM4Pq6RM>
.
|
|
Here it is - as a separated PR: #204 |
|
Ok, it is fine for me
El 3 oct. 2017 5:04 p. m., "Matous Jobanek" <notifications@github.com>
escribió:
… Here it is - as a separated PR: #204
<#204>
This one is still yours :-)
I went through the tests you ignored and I'm fine with removing the failed
one: HistoricalChangesFailedTestsSelectionExecutionFunctionalTest.java
But I would keep the HistoricalChangesAffectedTests
SelectionExecutionFunctionalTest.java as it tests on different
granularity than the other one.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#203 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABcmYYYgHSfmc5zcd1QZQsRhOBXxAMGdks5sok0YgaJpZM4Pq6RM>
.
|
|
@MatousJobanek updated. If you agree we can merge. |
|
I just wanted to catch up on it - I don't see an approval from Matous and yet you asked him
Did you guys took it offline or it was just merged? |
|
@bartoszmajsak we talked on mattermost. |
|
How much did we improve the build time after this PR got merged @lordofthejars ? |
Short description of what this resolves:
Improves build time by ignoring overlapping tests and narrow builds
Changes proposed in this pull request:
Fixes #126