-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
CI: e2e: fix checkpoint flake #24300
CI: e2e: fix checkpoint flake #24300
Conversation
Cockpit tests failed for commit 81b2f2f69e975c89ac8b7164db9ee92cb0c922e4. @martinpitt, @jelly, @mvollmer please check. |
The cockpit F41 failure is the same as the one discussed in #24238 (comment) ff. Reported to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2319310 and workaround in cockpit-project/cockpit-podman#1883 . You can retry or ignore here. |
test/e2e/checkpoint_test.go
Outdated
Expect(podmanTest.NumberOfContainersRunning()).To(Equal(1), "# of running containers after restore") | ||
Expect(podmanTest.NumberOfContainers()).To(Equal(1), "total # of containers after restore") | ||
Expect(podmanTest.GetContainerStatus()).To(ContainSubstring("Up")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These checks are rather inefficient as each call to podmanTest... does a podman ps internally so all of these checks could really be combined into single podmn ps, to speed the test up. I know it is very little gain so not worth fixing now but at least for new tests I would call this a anti pattern.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you mean to remove these as you added the one podman ps check above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Argh. Yes, of course I did. Thank you for catching that.
81b2f2f
to
3aabb08
Compare
Two flakes seen in the last three months. One of them was in August, so it's not related to ongoing criu-4.0 problems. Suspected cause: race waiting for "podman run --rm" container to transition from stopped to removed. Solution: allow a 5-second grace period, retrying every second. Also: add explanations to the Expect()s, remove unnecessary code, and tighten up the CID check. Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
3aabb08
to
fa920f5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, Luap99 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
Two flakes seen in the last three months. One of them was in
August, so it's not related to ongoing criu-4.0 problems.
Suspected cause: race waiting for "podman run --rm" container
to transition from stopped to removed.
Solution: allow a 5-second grace period, retrying every second.
Also: add explanations to the Expect()s, remove unnecessary
code, and tighten up the CID check.
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago santiago@redhat.com