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

Avoid flaky topo concurrency test #17407

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Avoid flaky topo concurrency test #17407

wants to merge 7 commits into from
+90 −102

Conversation

timvaillancourt
Copy link
Contributor

@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt commented Dec 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR avoids flakiness in the TestStatsConnTopoListDir and TestStatsConnTopoGet unit tests of go/vt/topo by ensuring the semaphore we hold to test semaphore-wait stats is acquired before testing a ListDir or Get

I don't see cases of this flakiness on our fork or upstream, but I think flakiness possible in extreme cases

Also, test logic was updated to use require.Equal, require.(No)Error and require.(Not)Zero

Related Issue(s)

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

@timvaillancourt
Avoid flakiness in topo concurrency test
9793dab 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt
modernize test
c1f3291 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt
more cleanup
bd2a087 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt
var rename
895fcb5 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt added Type: Internal Cleanup Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Topology labels Dec 19, 2024
@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt self-assigned this Dec 19, 2024
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 19, 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 Dec 19, 2024
@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt 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 Dec 19, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Dec 19, 2024
@timvaillancourt
more cleanup
4736966 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt
lint
82cd7a1 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@timvaillancourt
better comments
37eb29a 
Signed-off-by: Tim Vaillancourt <[email protected]>
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (main@c336557). Learn more about missing BASE report.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17407   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   67.60%           
=======================================
  Files           ?     1581           
  Lines           ?   253945           
  Branches        ?        0           
=======================================
  Hits            ?   171683           
  Misses          ?    82262           
  Partials        ?        0

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

mattlord
mattlord approved these changes Dec 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/topo/stats_conn_test.go
conn := &fakeConn{}
statsConn := NewStatsConn("global", conn, testStatsConnReadSem)
ctx := context.Background()

go createTestReadSemaphoreContention(ctx, 100*time.Millisecond)
semAcquiredChan := make(chan bool)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not that it really matters here, but when you don't care about the value being passed you can use an empty struct literal which is zero bytes:

semAcquiredChan := make(chan struct{})

semAcquiredChan <- struct{}{}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mattlord mattlord mattlord approved these changes

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

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt

Labels
Component: Topology Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Type: Internal Cleanup
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v22.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@timvaillancourt @mattlord