-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 312
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
jck do not have enabled rerun #5655
Comments
We have a different rerun mechanism that is used for all types of tests. At the end of a test job, the testcase failures are gathered, and just those failures are rerun when RERUN_ITERATIONS=1 (or some value above the default value of 0). |
I know that one. And is awesome! Still in case of TCK, even one subset is quite long, and it may be better to reuse the in-tck mechanism to get rid of one or two false negatives right out of thebox. |
Let's chat on Tuesday when I am back from vacation. |
Sure! This is just idea, no enforcement. The individual susbets are very Very VERY stable, so including embedded rerun may add unnecessary complexity. |
Current jcks are split (https://github.com/adoptium/aqa-tests/tree/master/jck/splitter) into the chunks (eg
aqa-tests/jck/runtime.api/playlist.xml
Line 815 in 06f6219
aqa-tests/jck/jck.mk
Line 152 in 06f6219
That suggests that jck simply runs once. However by combination of existing, correct workdit and running all non passed tests:
It is easy to achieve very stable rerun mechanism, which will iterate for known number of iterations or until full pass, depending what comes first. If the #5654 will be implemented, then any subsequent run then first, should be on concurency 1. Advantage is, that final result xml should contain only final version of accumulated passes.
wdyt? (note, this is battle tested in RH, we even have various reruns slightly different - first headless, and some tests excluded, second headfull and still high concurency, and then few loops on concrency 1, and then the remaining tests. As current AQA runners are pretty stable, I would like to not get into this depth just simply looping (especially with #5654 in) few times)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: