WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
Bug 60441
Testing EWS spins on patches with a large number of failures
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60441
Summary
Testing EWS spins on patches with a large number of failures
Adam Barth
Reported
2011-05-07 15:58:57 PDT
Testing EWS spins on patches with a large number of failures
Attachments
Patch
(9.57 KB, patch)
2011-05-07 16:04 PDT
,
Adam Barth
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(9.05 KB, patch)
2011-05-07 17:14 PDT
,
Adam Barth
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(8.97 KB, patch)
2011-05-07 19:46 PDT
,
Adam Barth
eric
: review+
eric
: commit-queue+
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(2)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Adam Barth
Comment 1
2011-05-07 16:04:20 PDT
Created
attachment 92699
[details]
Patch
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 2
2011-05-07 16:41:09 PDT
Comment on
attachment 92699
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=92699&action=review
I think this is a great change, but I would like to see anothe rround.
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:33 > + self._failures_bounded = True
_failures_are_bounded would be better. We need to clarify that this means that we can't use the _failures() set. That we're treating the set of failures as infinite. That was not clear in my first reading of this patch.
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:36 > + def _has_results(self, results): > + return bool(results and len(results.failing_tests()) != 0)
I think you should call this _has_failures instead of _has_results
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:39 > + return bool(results.failure_limit_count() and len(results.failing_tests()) < results.failure_limit_count())
maybe assert(results)?
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:41 > + def _has_trustworthy_results(self, results):
I would have left this as _can_trust_results (since I don't think the other two methods are really _results methods, but rather _failures methods.)
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:45 > + if not self._has_trustworthy_results(results):
You should note here why failures_were_expected does not need to check _failures_are_bounded. I believe it's because we'll "incorrectly" return false negatives in the unbounded failures case, but our callers won't care.
Adam Barth
Comment 3
2011-05-07 17:12:53 PDT
> > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:45 > > + if not self._has_trustworthy_results(results): > > You should note here why failures_were_expected does not need to check _failures_are_bounded. I believe it's because we'll "incorrectly" return false negatives in the unbounded failures case, but our callers won't care.
I added the check. I don't think it matters much either way.
Adam Barth
Comment 4
2011-05-07 17:14:08 PDT
Created
attachment 92701
[details]
Patch
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 5
2011-05-07 19:43:01 PDT
Comment on
attachment 92701
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=92701&action=review
I think we need more testing here. Again, the concept looks good. It's a bit odd that we're storing the failure_limit outside this class, but kinda necessary.
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:40 > + def _has_bounded_results(self, results):
I would name this has_bounded_failures since it deals with failures. But it's true, that failures is the way we limit results these days.
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:48 > + if not self._can_trust_results(results) or not self._failures_are_bounded:
Is this intentional? Seems we want to test this.
> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:66 > + self._failures_are_bounded = True
_failures_are_bounded = False if we can't trust resutls here?
Adam Barth
Comment 6
2011-05-07 19:45:28 PDT
Comment on
attachment 92701
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=92701&action=review
>> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:40 >> + def _has_bounded_results(self, results): > > I would name this has_bounded_failures since it deals with failures. But it's true, that failures is the way we limit results these days.
Done.
>> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:48 >> - if not self._can_trust_results(results): >> + if not self._can_trust_results(results) or not self._failures_are_bounded: > > Is this intentional? Seems we want to test this.
You asked me to add this in the previous iteration. I can remove it again if you want.
>> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool/bot/expectedfailures.py:66 >> + self._failures_are_bounded = True > > _failures_are_bounded = False if we can't trust resutls here?
That wouldn't shrink the expected failures, right?
Adam Barth
Comment 7
2011-05-07 19:46:03 PDT
Created
attachment 92719
[details]
Patch
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 8
2011-05-07 19:49:07 PDT
Comment on
attachment 92719
[details]
Patch OK.
Adam Barth
Comment 9
2011-05-07 19:50:14 PDT
Committed
r86020
: <
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/86020
>
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug