We have the concept of an "intermittent test".
Unfortunately, it can be hard to figure out if your change was the culprit. Because this build takes so long, changesets are batched up, and as before if the build fails you get an email saying which tests failed. Third, (remember the code is already checked in at this point), a more comprehensive build is run that runs all of the tests instead of just a subset. If this fails, you get a build email saying what tests failed and for what reason, and you must start over. (We used to use branches, but don't anymore). If the build succeeds here, your changes are checked into the "mainline". Second, the same set of tests is run as before with your change, except instead of these builds being run in parallel, they are serialized. If this fails, you get a build email saying what tests failed and for what reason, at which point you must start over. If this succeeds, the next step is automatically kicked off. These builds are run in parallel for efficiency. This builds the entire visual studio solution and runs a subset of tests that we consider to be critical to the project. (Assuming change is made and code review has been approved)įirst, you make your change and submit it for a preapproval step via a button in visual studio. We use TFS, and checking in code takes several hours. The company I work at has a (in my opinion) slow build process.
0 kommentar(er)
