Skip to content

added junit results xml so we can use existing flaky test detection - #39701

Closed
edewit wants to merge 2 commits into
keycloak:mainfrom
edewit:issue-39700
Closed

added junit results xml so we can use existing flaky test detection#39701
edewit wants to merge 2 commits into
keycloak:mainfrom
edewit:issue-39700

Conversation

@edewit

@edewit edewit commented May 14, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

fixes: #39700
Signed-off-by: Erik Jan de Wit erikjan.dewit@gmail.com

@edewit
edewit requested review from a team as code owners May 14, 2025 07:42
@edewit edewit self-assigned this May 14, 2025
@edewit
edewit force-pushed the issue-39700 branch 2 times, most recently from 37d264b to 2bbc17f Compare May 14, 2025 09:28
fixes: keycloak#39700
Signed-off-by: Erik Jan de Wit <erikjan.dewit@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Erik Jan de Wit <erikjan.dewit@gmail.com>

@stianst stianst left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly the way the flaky test works for Java:

  • Surefire generates a TEST-???.xml file for each test class that runs. If there are flaky tests there will be a <flakyFailure or <flakyError in the file.
  • upload-flaky-test then looks for these, and if any are found uploads the artifacts to the GH run
  • The bot looks for runs that have completed and have flaky-tests-* artifacts uploaded, and for those that have it will create or update GH issues accordingly

It seems in this PR you are removing the part that is looking for the test reports with flaky entries, which would then stop making this work for Java tests.

For js-ci.yml it's not using this action, but instead uploading test results, which probably wouldn't be in the needed format.

Could you elaborate a bit on the changes in this PR? It doesn't make all that much sense to me.

@edewit

edewit commented May 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Right I've added surefire xml results to the playwright tests, but they don't have the <FlakyFailure or <FlakyError tags, but I've update the parses from the bot to still be able to use those. I thought the change that I made would only change that this always create this job-summary.properties instead of only when there where Flaky tests. But if it's doesn't even use this action then this change makes no sense.

@ssilvert ssilvert closed this Jun 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add junit tests reports to playwright tests

3 participants