[HAMMER] Turbo distinct

[jrafanie]

Turbo distinct

(cherry picked from commit ec3a2dc)

Manual backport of #19025 to hammer to avoid a git conflict.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741327

[gtanzillo]

Looks good 👍

[simaishi]

@jrafanie Created clone BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741327, can you please update commit msg so bot will comment on the clone BZ instead?

[simaishi]

@jrafanie Can you review the Travis failure?

[jrafanie]

@simaishi Ok, I fixed the sporadic failure on this PR. I'll have to open a PR on ivanchuk to pick that commit..it will sporadically fail there and on master.

It's actually not failing on ivanchuk or master, so this is hammer only.

[miq-bot]

Checked commits jrafanie/manageiq@14ea397~...f3201ee with ruby 2.4.6, rubocop 0.69.0, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
3 files checked, 1 offense detected

lib/rbac/filterer.rb

• ❗ - Line 352, Col 7 - Style/MultilineBlockChain - Avoid multi-line chains of blocks.

[jrafanie]

@simaishi it's green now

[simaishi]

Travis was fine yesterday but it's failing today with:

  1) Rbac::Filterer common setup with inline view remembers distinct
     Failure/Error: expect(recs.map(&:id)).to eq(vms.sort_by(&:updated_on).reverse.map(&:id))

       expected: [75000000002599, 75000000002598, 75000000002597]
            got: [75000000002597, 75000000002598, 75000000002599]

Failed before with:

       expected: [18000000000277, 18000000000278, 18000000000279]
            got: [18000000000279, 18000000000278, 18000000000277]

So it looks like the order isn't guaranteed.

[jrafanie]

@simaishi is this still an issue? cc @kbrock

[simaishi]

@jrafanie yes, that's still an issue. Sometimes it fails, other times it works...

[kbrock]

@jrafanie @simaishi Does this ever fail for other branches?

am looking into this

[simaishi]

I've seen this fail in hammer branch only so far.

[kbrock]

running this test locally, I was able to get it to fail 1 of 100 times.
after backporting #18928 it fails for me 100/100 times
after reverting this PR, it succeeds for me 100/100 times

@jrafanie ok to revert this PR?

[jrafanie]

running this test locally, I was able to get it to fail 1 of 100 times.
after backporting #18928 it fails for me 100/100 times
after reverting this PR, it succeeds for me 100/100 times

Ah, are you saying that #18298 + the first commit in this PR "fix" the problem?

@jrafanie ok to revert this PR?

I'm guessing you mean revert the second commit of this PR, f3201ee, ... if yes, then, yes, please open a hammer PR to revert f3201ee

[kbrock]

@jrafanie thnx - yes, just revert f3201ee