Skip to content
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

rewrite some flaky zombienet polkadot tests to zombienet-sdk #6757

Merged
merged 48 commits into from
Jan 7, 2025

Conversation

alindima
Copy link
Contributor

@alindima alindima commented Dec 4, 2024

Will fix:
#6574
#6644
#6062

@alindima alindima added R0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes T8-polkadot This PR/Issue is related to/affects the Polkadot network. T10-tests This PR/Issue is related to tests. labels Dec 4, 2024
@alindima alindima requested a review from a team as a code owner December 4, 2024 15:15
@pepoviola
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @alindima, I think this is failing because we need to hide the helpers mod behind the zombie-metadata feature. If you are ok I will move to helpers dir and change the imports.
Thx!

@alindima alindima changed the title [WIP] rewrite some flaky zombienet polkadot tests to zombienet-sdk rewrite some flaky zombienet polkadot tests to zombienet-sdk Dec 18, 2024
Copy link
Member

@eskimor eskimor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice! Thanks Alin!


// Assert the parachain finalized block height is also on par with the number of backed
// candidates.
assert_finalized_block_height(&para_node.wait_client().await?, 6..9).await?;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I get that we don't want flaky tests. It is kind of concerning that we let tests pass if we do less blocks than expected. We definitely need some tests in some fashion ensuring that we are not degrading.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I get that we don't want flaky tests. It is kind of concerning that we let tests pass if we do less blocks than expected.

I mean, we've always done this in the CI so far. The only way of fixing this IMO is to invest more in the reliability and performance of the CI machines

@paritytech-workflow-stopper
Copy link

All GitHub workflows were cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs.
Failed workflow url: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/actions/runs/12639216038
Failed job name: check-core-crypto-features

Copy link
Contributor

@sandreim sandreim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @alindima . Before merge, let's re-run these a couple of times in CI to confirm these are not flaky (excluding infra issues)

Copy link
Contributor

@pepoviola pepoviola left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks 🙌

@alindima
Copy link
Contributor Author

alindima commented Jan 7, 2025

Thank you @alindima . Before merge, let's re-run these a couple of times in CI to confirm these are not flaky (excluding infra issues)

Yep, I ran them like 5-6 times each and we should be good

@alindima alindima enabled auto-merge January 7, 2025 11:57
@alindima alindima added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 7, 2025
Merged via the queue into master with commit 064f10c Jan 7, 2025
202 of 204 checks passed
@alindima alindima deleted the alindima/zombienet-sdk-rewrite branch January 7, 2025 14:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
R0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes T8-polkadot This PR/Issue is related to/affects the Polkadot network. T10-tests This PR/Issue is related to tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants