Eliminating Flaky Tests
By Munil Shah
The next part of ensuring ‘Master is Shippable’ was eliminating flaky tests. A test is flaky when it passes sometimes and fails sometimes, without any noticeable change in the code, tests, or environment. Some tests fail, then you re-run them and they pass. They are useless tests and if left uncontrolled can completely destroy the value of an automated regression suite. The primary benefit of having automated tests is that they detect bugs by acting as regression tests.
On the flip side, having a great bug detection or deterministic quality signal means you can find bugs early in the cycle. It increases your confidence in making big changes. Flakiness can plague any kind of test, but it’s particularly prone to affect tests with a broad scope, functional tests.
We needed a robust process to manage test flakiness.
Our First Attempt to Remove Flaky Tests
Initially, we continued to run our old tests at the same time as the new L2 tests. These are new functional tests and we wanted to make sure they are highly reliable from the beginning. We would take a good build and run tests in a tight loop 500 times, called a reliability run. If a test fails at any time, we would declare it as flaky and file a test reliability bug. These bugs show up on the team scorecard and the team would fix those bugs. With a significant commitment from the leadership to track and fix flaky tests with this approach, we were able to improve the reliability of the L2 tests well over 90%.
It turns out 90+% reliability is good, but it is nowhere close to sufficient. We needed tests that pass 100%. There were a couple of reasons why this system didn’t get us close to 100%. First, the signal coming out of the reliability run is not used immediately to filter out tests. Instead it relied on engineers to watch for reliability bugs and fix them. Second, the whole process was manual. The reliability runs were done weekly and it required manual action to identify failures and file bugs.
Flaky Test Management – New Approach
We built a new system that addressed all these drawbacks.
We used the reliability data automatically and immediately in the official test run. The system would automatically file bugs for flaky tests and the engineers were expected to fix those bugs quickly. The flakiness data immediately appeared in team scorecard. The official run didn’t remove flaky tests from the run, it simply filtered them out from the results. This was a key innovation. We didn’t quarantine the tests, we quarantine the results, which was much easier to do.
The new approach worked. The CI runs became very green. The system tracks resolution time on flaky test bugs and we fixed these bugs with an average resolution time of 3.75 days. The system runs itself without much manual intervention. And most importantly, the team trusts the CI signal. When there is failure, the team immediately jumps on it to debug the problem, because now it is likely a bug in the code that just got merged and not a problem with the tests.
Below is what our CI pipeline looks like in action. Each column represents a build and each row is a suite of tests we run on the CI build. As you can see, it remains pretty green with runs passing 100% vast majority of the time. There are occasional red cells, but the pass rate is typically 99+%. It doesn’t take too long to investigate the failures and take actions on them. The failures are removed fairly quickly.
|As Partner Director of Engineering in Microsoft's Cloud and Enterprise division, Munil Shah leads engineering for Azure DevOps and TFS products. Munil has over 20 years of experience building large scale software and distributed services. Prior to his current role, he held various engineering leadership positions Bing Advertising and Windows groups at Microsoft. He is passionate about leading engineering teams through significant transformation to deliver successful solutions to customers.|
Send feedback about: