Makefile: add gotag for make server_check
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #xxx
Problem Summary:
What changed and how does it work?
There's some error check enabled by gotag intest.
And we're moving tests from Golang's unit test to the integration tests. We need to use the binary which is compiled with the gotag.
Check List
Tests
- [ ] Unit test
- [ ] Integration test
- [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
- [x] No need to test
- [ ] I checked and no code files have been changed.
Side effects
- [ ] Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
- [ ] Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
- [ ] Breaking backward compatibility
Documentation
- [ ] Affects user behaviors
- [ ] Contains syntax changes
- [ ] Contains variable changes
- [ ] Contains experimental features
- [ ] Changes MySQL compatibility
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.
None
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 95.23810% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 57.4948%. Comparing base (
c18eaa7) to head (9f5929a). Report is 10 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #51057 +/- ##
=================================================
- Coverage 73.3439% 57.4948% -15.8491%
=================================================
Files 1629 1823 +194
Lines 450157 680219 +230062
=================================================
+ Hits 330163 391091 +60928
- Misses 99731 263801 +164070
- Partials 20263 25327 +5064
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| integration | 36.9181% <90.4761%> (?) |
|
| unit | 72.5691% <83.3333%> (+0.1007%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
| Components | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| dumpling | 52.9478% <ø> (ø) |
|
| parser | ∅ <ø> (∅) |
|
| br | 51.3637% <ø> (+5.7974%) |
:arrow_up: |
It's so surprising that some tests failed when we added the gotags. I'll check it later.
/retest
[LGTM Timeline notifier]
Timeline:
/retest
/retest
/retest
/retest
/retest
/hold for a while
Now that the check_dev can pass.
We know that the failure is caused by
I'm trying to solve it without enlarging the cache size too much.
/retest
/unhold
/approve
/retest
/retest
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: AilinKid, hawkingrei, lance6716, Leavrth, okJiang, tangenta, wjhuang2016, XuHuaiyu
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
- ~~OWNERS~~ [AilinKid,Leavrth,XuHuaiyu,hawkingrei,lance6716,okJiang,tangenta,wjhuang2016]
- ~~pkg/expression/OWNERS~~ [XuHuaiyu]
- ~~pkg/planner/OWNERS~~ [AilinKid,hawkingrei]
- ~~pkg/table/OWNERS~~ [tangenta,wjhuang2016]
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
@winoros: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-br-integration-test | f3efa8a7b9929c9785ea809377712fabc31bdbad | link | true | /test pull-br-integration-test |
| pull-lightning-integration-test | f3efa8a7b9929c9785ea809377712fabc31bdbad | link | true | /test pull-lightning-integration-test |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.
/retest