proomt

Search

Search posts, papers, and topics

All posts

Jepsen1 min readintro

Lessons From Testing Distributed Systems

Summary

This Jepsen blog post announces a retrospective talk on 13 years of testing distributed systems, linking to slides and a video. The post itself contains no detailed lessons or technical content.

  • The article only announces a retrospective talk and provides links to slides and a video.
  • No concrete testing techniques, findings, or design guidance are presented in the text.
3/10

Related reading

  1. Article: Your Next DSL Author Is a Language Model

    Typed Domain Grounding (TDG) embeds a DSL inside a mainstream language the LLM already knows (e.g., Kotlin) and uses the host compiler as an oracle. The author describes five building blocks—embedding, choosing a host language with high training‑data frequency, compiler‑driven type safety, a generate‑compile‑repair loop, and an on‑demand teaching tool—and shows measured results from kUML, a Kotli…

    InfoQinfoq.com18 min
  2. Introducing System One Models and Jev

    TypeSafe AI announced its first “System One” model, Jev, a non‑text‑generating LLM that outputs type‑safe structured decisions with calibrated probabilities. It claims 40‑200× lower latency (70‑500 ms) and 100‑500× lower cost versus frontier LLMs, no hallucinations, and parallel sampling. The post includes a side‑by‑side demo, a custom “workflow” benchmark comparing Jev to GPT‑5.6/6 and other mod…

    Hacker News front pagetypesafe.ai9 minHN1824480lobste.rs26
  3. Write End-to-End Tests in Your Backend’s Language

    This article advocates writing end-to-end tests in the backend's language to leverage domain models and persistence tools for efficient test data setup. It details a strategy for structuring E2E tests with inline data creation, small helpers, and parallel execution considerations.

    Atomic Objectatomicobject.com7 min
  4. The Flaky Test Confession: “We All Know We’re Ignoring Test Failures”

    Flaky tests silently erode CI reliability, waste compute and developer time, and let real bugs slip into production. The post quantifies the cost (≈2.5 % of developer time, $5.67 per manual investigation vs $0.02 for auto‑rerun) and critiques common band‑aid approaches (retries, quarantine, manual triage). It argues that visibility—detecting flaky tests, predictive test selection, and automated t…

    Codeshipcloudbees.com5 min