Closed
Bug 1125863
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
Reports should differentiate enabled from added and disabled from removed
Categories
(Testing Graveyard :: Test Informant, defect)
Testing Graveyard
Test Informant
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: ahal, Unassigned, Mentored)
Details
(Whiteboard: [lang=python])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
88 bytes,
text/plain
|
Details |
It would be useful to see if tests are being disabled versus removed (i.e as part of a refactor). Likewise how often tests are being re-enabled versus added. It would probably also be good to have the ratio of enabled/disabled in the summary (which ignores all newly added or removed tests).
All this would give us a better view into how good we are about re-enabling disabled tests.
![]() |
||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Test informant is all written in Python, correct? So this project would be in Python?
Flags: needinfo?(ahalberstadt)
Whiteboard: [lang=python]
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Yes, thanks. This particular bug would also need some modification to a jinja2 template (very similar to django templates).
Also just want to warn that bug 1124689 (which has another contributor working on it) could possibly result in a schema change which might have implications on this bug. Any changes as a results of that bug should be minor though, so I don't want that to discourage anyone from taking this.
Flags: needinfo?(ahalberstadt)
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
I added a 'disabled' field to the database and I used that to separate removed tests from disabled ones. Am I on the right track?
Attachment #8557164 -
Flags: feedback?(ahalberstadt)
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8557164 [details]
Adding a disabled field to the database
https://github.com/adusca/test-informant/commit/ab8957498c51bea41b13987a7d72d1e0f9834d73
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8557164 [details]
Adding a disabled field to the database
Good idea, but not quite. I was thinking that this would all be calculated on the report generating side:
https://github.com/mozilla/test-informant/blob/master/tools/formatters/base.py#L57
The goal is to differentiate "enabled" from "added" and "disabled" from "removed". To do this, we need to compare each test to the previous run. There are four scenarios we care about:
1. test was previously skipped, now it isn't => enabled
2. test was previously run, now it's skipped => disabled
3. test did not previously exist, now it's run => added
4. test was previously run, now it doesn't exist => removed
p.s feel free to refactor that code if you see a better way.
Attachment #8557164 -
Flags: feedback?(ahalberstadt)
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Ops, I completely misunderstood what 'disabled' means. Second try.
Attachment #8557164 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8557289 -
Flags: feedback?(ahalberstadt)
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8557289 [details]
differentiating enabled from added and disabled from removed
https://github.com/adusca/test-informant/commit/ab8957498c51bea41b13987a7d72d1e0f9834d73#commitcomment-9563062
Attachment #8557289 -
Flags: feedback?(ahalberstadt)
![]() |
||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Andrew Halberstadt [:ahal] from comment #5)
> There are four scenarios we care about:
>
> 1. test was previously skipped, now it isn't => enabled
> 2. test was previously run, now it's skipped => disabled
> 3. test did not previously exist, now it's run => added
> 4. test was previously run, now it doesn't exist => removed
I think there's a fifth case here that should be added for completeness:
5. test did not previously exist, now it's skipped => disabled
I don't know how common this is, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a few tests just this year that fall into this bucket. And since I'm thinking of it, there's a sixth case:
6. test was previously skipped, now it doesn't exist => removed
Updated•8 years ago
|
Product: Testing → Testing Graveyard
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•