Run analysis again |
||||
Issue descriptionPage URL: https://findit-for-me.appspot.com/waterfall/flake?redirect=1&key=ag9zfmZpbmRpdC1mb3ItbWVy0gELEhdNYXN0ZXJGbGFrZUFuYWx5c2lzUm9vdCKbAWNocm9taXVtLm1hYy9NYWMxMC4xMyBUZXN0cy8zMTk3L2Jyb3dzZXJfdGVzdHMvUW05dmEyMWhjbXRCY0hCT1lYWnBaMkYwYVc5dVZHaHliM1IwYkdWRmVIQmxjbWx0Wlc1MFlXeFhhVzVrYjNkUGNHVnVRbkp2ZDNObGNsUmxjM1F1VjJsdVpHOTNUM0JsYmtsdVFYQndMekU9DAsSE01hc3RlckZsYWtlQW5hbHlzaXMYAQw Description: Would it make sense to add the option to run an analysis again?
,
Jun 6 2018
It seems this analysis (among others) cannot be rerun, what I've noticed is the un-rerunable ones tend to be on tryserver.chromium.* leading me to believe there's a bug in rerunning requests from cq
,
Jun 6 2018
,
Jun 8 2018
Any updates? I can't figure out why my tests became flaky and findit would reaaally help here!
,
Jun 12 2018
Reruns are blocked by issue 851777 with a fix in review. If deployed we can rerun this analysis tomorrow
,
Jun 12 2018
,
Jun 18 2018
Seems like the blocking issue has been fixed. How would I go about triggering a re-run?
,
Jun 21 2018
Currently the ability to rerun analyses is Findit admin only, I've triggered one for you here, currently pending: https://findit-for-me.appspot.com/waterfall/flake?redirect=1&key=ag9zfmZpbmRpdC1mb3ItbWVy0gELEhdNYXN0ZXJGbGFrZUFuYWx5c2lzUm9vdCKbAWNocm9taXVtLm1hYy9NYWMxMC4xMyBUZXN0cy8zMTk3L2Jyb3dzZXJfdGVzdHMvUW05dmEyMWhjbXRCY0hCT1lYWnBaMkYwYVc5dVZHaHliM1IwYkdWRmVIQmxjbWx0Wlc1MFlXeFhhVzVrYjNkUGNHVnVRbkp2ZDNObGNsUmxjM1F1VjJsdVpHOTNUM0JsYmtsdVFYQndMekU9DAsSE01hc3RlckZsYWtlQW5hbHlzaXMYAgw In Q3, Findit will be exposing the rerun feature to all @google.com accounts once it's stable
,
Jun 21 2018
It seems this is one of those low-flakiness cases, after rerunning the analysis it went back a bit and found a "stable" (98%+ passing) point (which is incorrect, as we recently flipped a switch to use 99.99999+% passing to count as "stable"), then ran into trouble trying to bisect the range between when it went from 98% to 96% passing which is likely the incorrect regression range. ortuno@ how would you like to proceed? We can run the analysis again and force it to go back further by ensuring it's using the 99.99% figure, or is the conclusion that this is a low-flakiness case sufficient for your needs?
,
Jun 22 2018
Thanks for running the analysis again! I believe that specific flaky test was due to some issues with mac. My ping a couple of days ago was because I was sheriff and there were some analysis for flaky tests that I wanted to rerun. Looking forward for the retry feature to be exposed! |
||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||
Comment 1 by st...@chromium.org
, Jun 4 2018Status: Assigned (was: Unconfirmed)