You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, there are separate scripts and configurations for identifying flaky tests using bare metal beasting and jenkins failure reports. But conceptually both are really just sources of data that must be combined together. For example, if we use jenkins failure reports as the source, we must still run the beasting filters to see if we can reproduce the failure. If the beasting filters cannot reproduce the failure then it is impossible to perform a git bisection. Perhaps we can just fold the use of jenkins failure report as another filter before/after beasting and simplify the code base?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, there are separate scripts and configurations for identifying flaky tests using bare metal beasting and jenkins failure reports. But conceptually both are really just sources of data that must be combined together. For example, if we use jenkins failure reports as the source, we must still run the beasting filters to see if we can reproduce the failure. If the beasting filters cannot reproduce the failure then it is impossible to perform a git bisection. Perhaps we can just fold the use of jenkins failure report as another filter before/after beasting and simplify the code base?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: