How Meta test their Flaky Tests
Meta, one of the largest tech companies, faces the challenge of maintaining reliable software tests. These tests, known as regression tests, ensure new code changes don't break existing features. However, some tests, called flaky tests, can be unreliable. Understanding why Meta addresses flaky tests helps you appreciate their meticulous approach to software quality.
Why is it Important to Address Flaky Tests?
Reduced Developer Productivity
Flaky tests waste developers' time. Imagine spending hours debugging a test failure, only to find out the test itself is broken, not the code. This reduces productivity and delays new features. Developers must trust their tests to focus on actual coding, not fixing unreliable tests.
Increased Risk of Undetected Regressions
Flaky tests can miss real issues. When a test fails randomly, it can mask real problems in the code. This increases the risk of undetected regressions slipping through. Ensuring tests are reliable means real bugs are caught early, maintaining software quality.
Impact on Overall Test Suite Reliability and Trust
Unreliable tests erode trust. If developers know some tests are flaky, they may ignore test results altogether. This undermines the entire testing process. Reliable tests build confidence, ensuring that passing tests mean the code is good.
Long-Term Costs of Maintaining Flaky Tests
Flaky tests are costly in the long run. Continuously fixing or rewriting unreliable tests consumes resources. Over time, this adds up. Investing in reliable tests from the start saves time and money, allowing teams to focus on innovation rather than maintenance.
Addressing flaky tests at Meta ensures developers are productive, real bugs are caught, and the test suite is trusted and cost-effective.
How to Identify Flaky Tests?
Bayesian Inference and Probabilistic Models
Meta uses Bayesian inference to spot flaky tests. This statistical method helps predict the likelihood of events based on prior knowledge. In this case, it estimates the flakiness of tests by examining past test results.
Explanation of Meta's Use of Bayesian Inference
Bayesian inference allows Meta to update the probability of test flakiness as new data comes in. When a test fails, Bayesian methods help decide if the failure is due to an actual bug or just a flaky test. This dynamic updating process ensures that the flakiness score is always current.
Overview of the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS)
Meta developed the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) to quantify test reliability. PFS assigns a score to each test, indicating its likelihood to fail due to flakiness rather than a real issue. This score helps prioritize which tests need attention and repair.
PFS Definition: A numerical value representing a test's flakiness.
Purpose: To measure and monitor test reliability.
Applicability: Works for any test, regardless of language or framework.
Statistical Models and Their Role in Identifying Flaky Tests
Meta uses complex statistical models to calculate the PFS. These models analyze patterns in test results, looking for signs of flakiness. For example, if a test fails sporadically without any code changes, it might be flagged as flaky. The statistical models help distinguish between genuine failures and random flakiness.
Data Analysis: Collects and examines sequences of test results.
Model Application: Uses the Stan probabilistic programming language to estimate flakiness.
Continuous Updating: Regularly updates PFS values in real-time.
Examples of Identifying Flaky Tests Using PFS
Consider a test that fails intermittently. By applying Bayesian inference and statistical models, Meta can determine if the failures are due to a flaky test. For instance, a test might pass 90% of the time but fail the remaining 10%. The PFS would reflect this inconsistency, prompting engineers to review and fix the test.
Scenario 1: A test that fails only when certain conditions are met. PFS would identify this as a high-flakiness scenario.
Scenario 2: A test that fails after specific code changes. PFS helps isolate whether the failure is due to the change or test flakiness.
Scenario 3: A test with non-deterministic elements, such as network dependencies. PFS flags this for further investigation.
Using Bayesian inference and PFS, Meta effectively identifies and addresses flaky tests, ensuring their test suite remains reliable and trustworthy.
What is the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS)?
The Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) is a metric developed by Meta to measure the reliability of their tests. This score helps identify how likely a test is to fail due to flakiness rather than an actual problem in the code. Understanding PFS is essential to maintain efficient and trustworthy testing processes.
Definition and Purpose of PFS
PFS provides a numerical value that represents the flakiness of a test. The purpose of this score is to help engineers quickly identify and address flaky tests, ensuring that only reliable tests are used to validate code changes. By quantifying flakiness, PFS enables Meta's engineers to focus on genuine issues rather than wasting time on unreliable tests.
How PFS Quantifies Test Flakiness
PFS quantifies test flakiness by analyzing the results of multiple test runs. The score is calculated based on the frequency and pattern of test failures. Here’s how it works:
Data Collection: Gather sequences of test results over time.
Pattern Analysis: Identify patterns in the test failures and passes.
Scoring: Assign a flakiness score based on the likelihood of a test failing without code changes.
For example, if a test fails inconsistently, PFS will assign a higher flakiness score to indicate its unreliability. This scoring system helps engineers prioritize which tests need immediate attention.
Universality and Applicability of PFS Across Different Tests
PFS is designed to be universal, meaning it can be applied to any test regardless of the programming language or framework used. This universality makes PFS a valuable tool for large organizations with diverse codebases. Whether a test is written in Python, Java, or any other language, PFS can quantify its flakiness in a consistent manner.
Language-Agnostic: Works with any programming language.
Framework-Independent: Compatible with all testing frameworks.
Scalable: Can be applied to millions of tests, making it suitable for large-scale projects.
Benefits of Using PFS in Large-Scale Test Suites
Using PFS in large-scale test suites offers several significant benefits:
Improved Reliability: By identifying and addressing flaky tests, PFS ensures that only reliable tests are used in the testing process.
Increased Developer Productivity: Engineers spend less time debugging flaky tests and more time on actual code improvements.
Early Detection of Issues: PFS helps catch flaky tests early, preventing them from causing larger problems down the line.
Enhanced Continuous Integration: Reliable tests lead to more efficient continuous integration systems, as they provide accurate feedback on code changes.
In summary, the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) is a powerful tool that helps Meta maintain the reliability of their test suites. By quantifying test flakiness and providing a universal, scalable solution, PFS ensures that Meta's developers can trust their tests and focus on delivering high-quality code.
How Does Meta Implement PFS?
Data Collection and Model Application
Meta's implementation of the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) involves several steps, each crucial for ensuring accurate and reliable results. By systematically collecting data and applying advanced statistical models, Meta can effectively measure and monitor test flakiness.
Gathering Test Result Sequences for Analysis
The first step in implementing PFS is gathering test result sequences. Meta collects data from numerous test runs to build a comprehensive dataset. Each test result, whether a pass or fail, is recorded along with the context—such as the version of the code and the state of the environment. This extensive collection provides a rich dataset for analysis:
Comprehensive Data: Includes results from various tests across different code versions and environments.
Contextual Information: Captures the conditions under which each test was run, aiding in accurate flakiness estimation.
Applying Statistical Models to Estimate Flakiness
Once the test result sequences are collected, Meta applies sophisticated statistical models to estimate the flakiness of each test. These models analyze patterns in the test results to determine the likelihood that a failure is due to flakiness rather than a genuine issue in the code. Key aspects include:
Pattern Recognition: Identifying consistent patterns in test failures and passes.
Probability Assessment: Estimating the probability that a test failure is flaky.
Use of the Stan Probabilistic Programming Language
Meta leverages the Stan probabilistic programming language to implement these statistical models. Stan is well-suited for this task due to its robust capabilities in Bayesian inference, which is essential for accurately estimating flakiness:
Bayesian Inference: Allows for the estimation of flakiness by considering prior knowledge and observed data.
Efficiency: Stan's algorithms enable efficient computation, even with large datasets.
Using Stan, Meta can invert the statistical model to derive a flakiness score from the observed test results. This process involves:
Model Inversion: Using Bayesian methods to infer the flakiness score from the test data.
Continuous Learning: The model continuously updates as new test results are collected.
Real-Time Monitoring and Updating of PFS Values
Real-time monitoring is a critical component of Meta's PFS implementation. By continuously updating PFS values, Meta ensures that the flakiness scores reflect the most current state of the test suite. This dynamic approach allows for immediate detection and response to changes in test reliability:
Continuous Data Collection: Test results are constantly collected and analyzed.
Real-Time Updates: PFS values are updated in real-time, providing up-to-date information on test reliability.
Dashboard Integration: Engineers can monitor flakiness trends through dedicated dashboards, enabling quick identification and resolution of flaky tests.
In summary, Meta's implementation of the Probabilistic Flakiness Score involves a meticulous process of data collection, statistical modeling, and real-time monitoring. By employing advanced tools like the Stan probabilistic programming language and maintaining a dynamic, continuous approach, Meta effectively manages and mitigates test flakiness, ensuring the reliability of their testing processes.
What Influences Test Flakiness?
Understanding what influences test flakiness helps in identifying and addressing the root causes. Various factors can make tests unreliable, causing them to produce inconsistent results.
Code Changes and Their Impact on Tests
Code changes are a primary factor that influences test flakiness. When developers modify code, even small tweaks can affect the outcomes of tests:
New Features: Introducing new features can create unexpected interactions with existing code.
Bug Fixes: Fixing one bug might inadvertently introduce another, causing tests to fail.
Code Refactoring: Refactoring code for better readability or performance can disrupt test results, especially if the tests were tightly coupled with the old code structure.
Each change requires tests to adapt, and sometimes these adjustments lead to flaky behavior. For instance, a test might pass in one scenario but fail in another due to subtle differences in how the new code interacts with existing systems.
Dependencies on Production Services and Configurations
Tests often rely on external services and configurations, which can greatly influence their reliability. These dependencies introduce variables that can cause tests to become flaky:
External APIs: Fluctuations in external API responses or downtime can lead to inconsistent test results.
Database States: The state of the database at the time of the test can affect outcomes, especially if the database isn't properly reset between tests.
Configuration Changes: Changes in configuration files or environment settings may cause tests to behave differently, depending on the state of these settings during each run.
These dependencies mean that tests are not run in isolation—they interact with a broader system that can change independently of the code being tested.
Environmental Factors and Nondeterministic Elements
Environmental factors and nondeterministic elements also play a significant role in test flakiness:
Hardware Variability: Differences in hardware performance, such as CPU speed or memory availability, can affect test results.
Network Conditions: Variability in network speed and reliability can cause tests that rely on network communication to fail sporadically.
Parallel Execution: Running tests in parallel can introduce race conditions, where the outcome depends on the timing of different test executions.
Nondeterministic elements, like random number generation or time-based functions, add another layer of complexity. For example, tests relying on the current time or date can produce different results depending on when they run.
The Concept of "Rubbish-Bin Flakiness" and Its Measurement
"Rubbish-bin flakiness" refers to the flakiness caused by factors that don't fit neatly into other categories. These include:
Race Conditions: Situations where the outcome depends on the sequence or timing of uncontrollable events.
Random Failures: Failures that occur seemingly without pattern or reason, often due to rare conditions or obscure bugs.
Transient Issues: Temporary issues, like a brief network outage or a momentary spike in server load, can cause tests to fail without underlying problems in the code.
Measuring rubbish-bin flakiness involves identifying these unpredictable elements and quantifying their impact on the test results. Meta uses statistical models to isolate and measure this type of flakiness, ensuring that it is accounted for in the overall flakiness score:
Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluating how sensitive test results are to these random factors.
Statistical Isolation: Using models to distinguish between genuine code issues and flakiness due to rubbish-bin factors.
By understanding and measuring rubbish-bin flakiness, engineers can prioritize which tests to fix and which to monitor, improving the overall reliability of the test suite.
In conclusion, multiple factors influence test flakiness, from code changes to environmental conditions and unpredictable elements. By identifying and measuring these influences, Meta can better manage test reliability and maintain high standards of software quality.
How to Use PFS Effectively?
Effectively using the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) helps in maintaining the reliability of tests and ensuring software quality at Meta. Here's how you can leverage PFS to its fullest potential.
Continuous Monitoring and Maintenance
Routine calculation and updating of PFS for tests are crucial. By continuously monitoring the flakiness scores, you can quickly identify when a test becomes unreliable. This ongoing process ensures that you always have an up-to-date view of test reliability.
Routine Calculation and Updating of PFS for Tests
Regular Updates: PFS values must be recalculated regularly as new test results come in. This helps in capturing the latest state of test reliability.
Automated Processes: Implementing automated systems to handle these updates ensures consistency and reduces manual effort. Automated processes can quickly analyze large volumes of data and keep the flakiness scores current.
Dashboards and Tools for Tracking Flakiness Trends
Tracking flakiness trends over time helps in spotting patterns and predicting future issues. Dashboards and other visualization tools make this task more manageable.
Visualization: Use dashboards to visualize flakiness trends. Graphs and charts can highlight changes in test reliability, making it easier to spot anomalies.
Historical Data: Analyze historical data to see how test reliability has evolved. This historical perspective can help in identifying persistent issues or improvements over time.
Incentivizing Engineers to Maintain Reliable Tests
Encouraging engineers to maintain reliable tests is essential. By creating incentives, you ensure that everyone is motivated to keep tests in good shape.
Recognition: Acknowledge and reward engineers who maintain reliable tests. Public recognition or small rewards can go a long way in motivating the team.
Accountability: Make engineers accountable for their tests. Assigning ownership of tests ensures that someone is responsible for addressing flakiness issues.
Creating Actionable Tickets for High-Flakiness Tests
When a test exhibits high flakiness, it’s important to create actionable tickets to address the issue. These tickets should contain all the necessary information to help engineers fix the problem promptly.
Detailed Reports: Include detailed information about the flakiness, such as the PFS value, recent test results, and any identified patterns.
Clear Actions: Specify clear actions that need to be taken to address the flakiness. This might include refactoring the test, investigating dependencies, or adjusting configurations.
Using PFS effectively involves a combination of continuous monitoring, effective use of tools, incentivizing good practices, and taking prompt action on identified issues. By following these strategies, you can significantly improve the reliability of your test suite and maintain high standards of software quality.
What are the Benefits of PFS for Meta?
Implementing the Probabilistic Flakiness Score (PFS) at Meta has brought several significant benefits. PFS has revolutionized how tests are managed, leading to numerous improvements across the board.
Improved Test Suite Reliability and Developer Trust
PFS has greatly enhanced the reliability of Meta's test suite. By quantifying flakiness, engineers can now trust their tests more. This trust translates to higher confidence in the software development process.
Reliable Signals: With PFS, tests provide more reliable signals, reducing the number of false positives and negatives.
Engineer Confidence: Developers can rely on the results, knowing that flaky tests are identified and addressed. This boosts their confidence, making them more efficient in their work.
Early Detection and Fixing of Flaky Tests
One of the standout benefits of PFS is its ability to detect flaky tests early. Early detection means issues can be fixed before they become major problems.
Proactive Approach: PFS allows for a proactive approach to test management. Flaky tests are flagged early, preventing them from affecting the development process.
Quick Fixes: Engineers can focus on fixing flaky tests as soon as they are identified, ensuring that the test suite remains robust and reliable.
Enhanced Efficiency of Continuous Integration Systems
The continuous integration (CI) systems at Meta benefit significantly from PFS. By reducing the number of flaky tests, the overall efficiency of CI systems improves.
Reduced Retests: With fewer flaky tests, there is less need for retesting, which saves time and resources.
Streamlined Processes: CI systems can operate more smoothly, with reliable tests providing accurate feedback on code changes.
Contribution to Overall Software Quality and Robustness
Finally, PFS contributes to the overall quality and robustness of Meta's software. Reliable tests mean that software releases are more stable and dependable.
Stable Releases: With fewer flaky tests, the risk of releasing buggy software decreases. This results in more stable and reliable software for users.
Robust Testing: PFS ensures that the testing process is thorough and robust, identifying issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.
In summary, PFS provides numerous benefits for Meta, from improving test reliability and developer trust to enhancing the efficiency of CI systems and contributing to the overall quality of software. These benefits make PFS an invaluable tool in maintaining a high standard of software development.
Taking Control of Testing
Taking control of flaky tests starts with reliable detection and prevention. Trunk is building a tool to conquer flaky tests once and for all. You’ll get all of the features of the big guy's internal systems without the headache of managing it. With Trunk Flaky Tests, you’ll be able to:
Autodetect the flaky tests in your build system
See them in a dashboard across all your repos
Quarantine tests with one click or automatically
Get detailed stats to target the root cause of the problem
Get reports weekly, nightly, or instantly sent right to email and Slack
Intelligently file tickets to the right engineer
If you’re interested in getting beta access, sign up here.
