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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

tests: add tests for go/atomic2 #14975

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

tests: add tests for go/atomic2 #14975

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Maniktherana
Copy link
Contributor

@Maniktherana Maniktherana commented Jan 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

achieve 100% coverage for go/atomic2

Related Issue(s)

#14931

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@Maniktherana Maniktherana requested a review from deepthi as a code owner January 17, 2024 15:27
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 17, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 17, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Jan 17, 2024
@frouioui frouioui added Type: Testing Component: General Changes throughout the code base and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jan 17, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c1f9c80) 47.26% compared to head (c648c7e) 47.26%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14975      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.26%   47.26%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1138     1138              
  Lines      238842   238842              
==========================================
- Hits       112880   112878       -2     
+ Misses     117368   117362       -6     
- Partials     8594     8602       +8

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mattlord mattlord mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2024
Open
dbussink
dbussink reviewed Jan 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/atomic2/atomic128_test.go

func TestCompareAndSwapWriteBarrier(t *testing.T) {
writeBarrier.enabled = true
require.True(t, writeBarrier.enabled, "writeBarrier should be enabled")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems like a very tautological tests and not really useful.

dbussink
dbussink reviewed Jan 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/atomic2/atomic128_test.go
}

func TestCompareAndSwapWriteBarrier(t *testing.T) {
writeBarrier.enabled = true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This modifies global state and at least we need to revert it back at the end of the test, but it also could introduce risk for flaky tests if anything runs in parallel.

Also this links to runtime stuff, so I think we're tbh probably better off not adding this test here. Because this hooks into the Go runtime.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Maniktherana Maniktherana Jan 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, this test was made just to cover this conditional. Is there a way to test it without modifying global state?

Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink Jan 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don’t think there’s a good way to test so I think we should skip trying to further test this.

Code coverage is a tool to find areas that might need more tests. It’s not a goal in itself to get to 100% coverage. That can have detrimental effects and this is one of those cases.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, I'll close this PR

dbussink
dbussink requested changes Jan 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should add this test here. This hooks into the Go runtime and modifies things there which isn't something I think we want to do from these tests.

@Maniktherana Maniktherana deleted the test-atomic2 branch January 19, 2024 16:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dbussink dbussink dbussink requested changes

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: General Changes throughout the code base Type: Testing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v19.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Maniktherana @dbussink @frouioui