Re: Travis CI unit tests

Hi! > I am not a big fan of changing tests to make it work, especially for > stable branches. Except for warning&co additions, a test change means I agree. But too often we face a situation where maintainer of the code is too busy or doesn't care enough to clean up the tests. Also, tests may be broken because of some deep bug that may take a lot of time to fix. So we need to develop a policy here. The policy may also be "don't care - broken tests means revert", if the community agrees with it. There is also the question of some tests working in one envt and not in another (intl tests are especially famous for it due to ICU changing their formats constantly) but I guess once we have a policy we can make tweaks and exceptions case-by-case. > One thing I would like to consider is peer reviews for patches in > stable branches. What you proposed goes in this direction, always go > through PR and travis before a change can be applied. That's one of the purposes. If I look on the patch, I want to see nice green checkmark, but that is impossible if our own build is always broken. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227