-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
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
[DO-NOT-MERGE][WIP][MINOR][SQL][TESTS] show tests in SQLQuerySuite correctly in Jenkins #25923
Closed
HeartSaVioR
wants to merge
4
commits into
apache:master
from
HeartSaVioR:WIP-show-tests-in-SQLTestQuerySuite-correctly-in-Jenkins
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e672c67
[MINOR][SQL][TESTS] show tests in SQLQuerySuite correctly in Jenkins
HeartSaVioR febac9f
Add explanation
HeartSaVioR f714453
Just applying another approach
HeartSaVioR b3414a2
Expand to all cases in SQLQueryTestSuite & ThriftServerQueryTestSuite
HeartSaVioR File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure about this because practically it was good since file names can be matched. Now it cannot be for cosmetic reasons.
I added a clue in the PR I pointed out in order to make debugging easier with the Jenkins output in Github. So currently people at least can identify which file was failed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Huge win of this workaround is availability of looking into history of individual test. It would provide context which cannot be retrieve from test log, which is really helpful to track down test flakiness.
e.g. https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/111332/testReport/org.apache.spark.sql/SQLQueryTestSuite/typeCoercion_native_mapconcat/history/
Full tests in SQLQueryTestSuite:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/111332/testReport/org.apache.spark.sql/SQLQueryTestSuite/
Full tests in ThriftServerQueryTestSuite (same test can be matched with SQLQueryTestSuite):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/111332/testReport/org.apache.spark.sql.hive.thriftserver/ThriftServerQueryTestSuite/
So I'm afraid I'm not sure it's just only cosmetic issue. This workaround brings actual benefits, though it has pros and cons, unfortunately. I guess someone would be familiar with file path instead of file path excluding ".sql", so please treat this as a proposal and weigh on current state vs "workaround applied" state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But this affects existing test way. Can't we find a way to override SBT's XML reporter or to use ScalaTest's XML reporter?
Fixing this in SBT, and upgrading the version should be the standard approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I totally agree that's the way to go, but if no one would like to go forward, that's just an ideal approach. (And that doesn't seem easy to fix the sbt issue with ensuring it doesn't break anything.) sbt/sbt#2949 is filed at Feb. 2017, which is over 2 years ago.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. For the current approach in this PR, I am still not sure due to the downside of changing the existing test way.
I don't think many people actually know
build/sbt "~sql/test-only *SQLQueryTestSuite -- -z xxx.sql"
is based upon its test name and matching it to the exact file name is pretty good one.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I could agree with this, as that means this feature is blindly used at all which it shouldn't (as it only applies to
*SQLQueryTestSuite
). This is even documented in Spark website. Please refer "Testing with SBT" in http://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.htmlYes I totally agree it is more intuitive and better. So that's "trade-off". Test history of *SQLQueryTestSuite in Jenkins is just unusable as of now, so personally I think it's worth to weigh on both. Not a strong opinion as I commented before - it's just a proposal.