[infinispan-dev] Policy: PR with failing test as a reproducer

[Mircea Markus]

On Jun 4, 2014, at 13:04, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne at infinispan.org> wrote:
> On 4 June 2014 08:08, Tomas Sykora <tsykora at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I'd like to know what is our policy in a following matter:
> >
> > I've wrote a new test which is failing. (local branch)
> >
> > 1) Do we want to integrate also failing test into our test-suite? To see the test failing regularly until the issue is fixed? I suppose no.
> > 2) The other and clearly better "solution" is to push failing test into my own remote branch, create JIRA, let others to try out the issue from my remote branch and wait for fix, then, integrate (already passing) test into upstream.
> >
> > Is here any possible place for 1) as well? Or we strictly follow 2)?
> 
> We strictly follow 2, as otherwise it gets very hard to tell if any
> change is introducing regressions.
> Any "fix" we make is surely well intentioned, but wathever you do, you
> want to make sure the project is evolving in a better direction.
> 
> > The only reason which I can see for a policy 1) is that the test would by failing regularly and wouldn't be easily overlooked.
> 
> Issues are tracked on the issue tracker -> JIRA.
> Traditionally faling tests have been attached as patch files on the
> issue, pointing to a branch is much nicer of course..
> 
> OTOH personal branches will be removed at some point, but attached files remain in JIRA.
> So I'd keep a patch or a full test class attached in JIRA, and only add a branch reference as a convenience.

+1 for the patch files, more safe that way.

Cheers,
-- 
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)