roachtest: mark acceptance as stable #30405
Merged
Conversation
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 change is |
petermattis
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2018
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale)
all of its subtests are already stable, but in running a test locally I noticed that the top-level test was marked as passing as unstable. I'm not sure, but this might mean that the top-level test would actually not fail? Either way, better to mark it as stable explicitly. We should also spend some thought on how diverging notions of Stable in sub vs top level test are treated, not sure that this is well-defined. Release note: None
tbg
force-pushed
the
roachtest/acceptance-stable
branch
from
144c0b3
to
db1eb7d
Compare
|
bors r=petermattis |
craig bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2018
30405: roachtest: mark acceptance as stable r=petermattis a=tschottdorf all of its subtests are already stable, but in running a test locally I noticed that the top-level test was marked as passing as unstable. I'm not sure, but this might mean that the top-level test would actually not fail? Either way, better to mark it as stable explicitly. We should also spend some thought on how diverging notions of Stable in sub vs top level test are treated, not sure that this is well-defined. Release note: None 30446: opt: fix panic when srf used with GROUP BY r=rytaft a=rytaft Instead of panicking, we now throw an appropriate error. Fixes #30412 Release note (bug fix): Fixed a panic that occurred when a generator function such as unnest was used in the SELECT list in the presence of GROUP BY. 30450: roachtest: remove now-unnecessary hack r=petermattis a=tschottdorf Closes #27717. Release note: None 30451: storage: give TestReplicateRemovedNodeDisruptiveElection more time r=petermattis a=tschottdorf Perhaps: Fixes #27253. Release note: None 30452: storage: de-flake TestReplicaIDChangePending r=petermattis a=tschottdorf setReplicaID refreshes the proposal and was thus synchronously writing to the commandProposed chan. This channel could have filled up due to an earlier reproposal already, deadlocking the test. Fixes #28132. Release note: None 30455: testcluster: improve AddReplicas check r=petermattis a=tschottdorf AddReplicas was verifying that a replica had indeed been added, but there's no guarantee that the replicate queue wouldn't have removed it in the meantime. Attempt to work around this somewhat. The real solution is not to provide that guarantee, but some tests likely rely on it (and the failure is extremely rare, i.e. the new for loop basically never runs). Observed in #28368. Release note: None 30456: storage: unskip TestClosedTimestampCanServe for non-race r=petermattis a=tschottdorf Fixes #28607. Release note: None Co-authored-by: Tobias Schottdorf <tobias.schottdorf@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Rebecca Taft <becca@cockroachlabs.com>
Build succeeded |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
all of its subtests are already stable, but in running a test locally I
noticed that the top-level test was marked as passing as unstable. I'm
not sure, but this might mean that the top-level test would actually not
fail? Either way, better to mark it as stable explicitly.
We should also spend some thought on how diverging notions of Stable in
sub vs top level test are treated, not sure that this is well-defined.
Release note: None