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.

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

Avoid port collisions when defining port ranges #6054

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 4, 2022

Conversation

crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator

@crusaderky crusaderky commented Apr 1, 2022

Does NOT close #6045

@crusaderky crusaderky self-assigned this Apr 1, 2022
@@ -364,7 +368,8 @@ def main(

try:
if listen_address:
(host, worker_port) = get_address_host_port(listen_address, strict=True)
host, _ = get_address_host_port(listen_address, strict=True)
worker_port = str(_)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

mypy hack

t = Nanny
else:
if nanny_port:
kwargs["service_ports"] = {"nanny": nanny_port}
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks like legacy cruft. service_ports is a property and can't be passed to Worker.__init__.

start_arg = self.listener.prefix + unparse_host_port(
host, self._given_worker_port
)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

worker_start_args does not seem to be used anywhere

@crusaderky crusaderky added the flaky test Intermittent failures on CI. label Apr 1, 2022
@mrocklin
Copy link
Member

mrocklin commented Apr 1, 2022

This is long enough and far enough in a corner of features that I'm probably not going to review it a ton. That being said, and for the same reason, I don't mind if you want to self merge.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2022

Unit Test Results

       18 files  ±    0         18 suites  ±0   9h 5m 51s ⏱️ - 28m 45s
  2 716 tests +  19    2 634 ✔️ +  21       82 💤 ±  0  0  - 2 
24 292 runs  +179  23 079 ✔️ +226  1 213 💤  - 45  0  - 2 

Results for commit 9eb94dd. ± Comparison against base commit 034b4d4.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

crusaderky commented Apr 4, 2022

I see the test is still failing - I was wrong in my diagnosis.
I've labelled the test as flaky for the time being.
See #6045 (comment) for discussion.

I believe this PR is a very healthy thing to have and should be merged even if it doesn't solve the problem.

@crusaderky crusaderky merged commit 175d3e8 into dask:main Apr 4, 2022
@crusaderky crusaderky deleted the nanny_port_range branch April 4, 2022 13:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
flaky test Intermittent failures on CI.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

flaky test_nanny_worker_port_range
3 participants