4 ms·
Wow. That works like really poor technical leadership. Fixing flaky tests (as opposed to deleting them) is indeed time consuming, but it is a far cheaper choice
by rio517 5y ago
Wow. That works like really poor technical leadership. Fixing flaky tests (as opposed to deleting them) is indeed time consuming, but it is a far cheaper choice than getting to the point your test suite is untrustworthy.
There may be a point where the cost of ownership for a specific test exceeds its utility, but the way to resolve that is usually to reevaluate your code and supporting tests. Suppressing flaky tests seems a very unwise choice.
Perhaps under extreme circumstances and with unhealthy code bases there may be a case for this, but I struggle to imagine it.
- ankitdce 5y agoThat is a fair argument. Not all organizations have the bandwidth to measure and manage stability of builds. Some companies build internal tools / dev productivity team for this purpose. There are always right intentions to comment out the flaky test with the mindset of coming back to it, but it is also a very low priority item in most cases when you have to ship new features. Fixing flaky tests can very commonly take longer than writing new tests.