-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
chore(e2e): better port selection #60
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this seems hacky...
I would feel better by setting a specific port range for each test, but also doesn't seem too good
Any other idea to solve this? @babylonlabs-io/core-dev
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we assume there is no other processes using our test ports we could probably:
acquirePort
i.e each call generates port, checks if it is not used (stored in map), and if it is not used it stores it in this map. (of course this operations must be behind mutex)t.Cleanup(..)
and of course it also must be protected by mutexThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, but tests do not share state, so having a mutex or a map here doesn't help. One way would be to have a test which would be ran first (e.g called 01Setup and without parallel flag), which would create a file and a lockfile, then all other parallel tests startup and read/write port that they are acquiring to this shared file (locking and unlocking).
I feel like this is a bit much, but if we start having collisions I would implement it.
Thoughts @KonradStaniec @RafilxTenfen
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also reason for needing to have a test called 01Setup (or something like that), is that because all tests start in parallel so they would also be having race condition for the initial file creation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not super hard to implement, I'll try it, see if it works and is worth the extra code. Thorugh this was clever and a nice hack :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They do not share it now but we could introduce it. You could create file
port_map.go
in oure2etest
package have therevar port_map = map[int]bool
and protect access to it. It seems simpler that having file with lock file.Or do I miss something about how go shares state between tests ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, you're right, pushed a new version