-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.9k
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
core: updates the backoff range as per the A6 redefinition #11858
Merged
larry-safran
merged 5 commits into
master
from
updates-retry-behavior-for-redefinition-in-A6
Feb 5, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f3ed6ef
core: updates the backoff range being used from [0, 1] to [0.8, 1.2] …
AgraVator 29824e3
adds a flag for experimental jitter
AgraVator c2f5c1c
xds: Allow FaultFilter's interceptor to be reused
ejona86 c3244f6
netty: Removed 4096 min buffer size (#11856)
AgraVator dad68ff
turns the flag in a var for better efficiency
AgraVator File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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 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 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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
This is not testing when isExperimentalRetryJitterEnabled is toggled.
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.
Yes, had discussed it with @kannanjgithub, we can add it if it is absolutely needed, but the default behavior is covered and the other one is to be deprecated after a few releases.
P.S. I think you meant the testing is not covered for "false" or the old behavior.
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.
In this case it is pretty trivial to see that setting the flag to false couldn't cause any problems, so it is fine to skip testing that case.
If it wasn't so obvious, but still simple, you'd want to create a single test case where you:
Then when the flag is removed the test case can be deleted (would want to add a TODO on the test case indicating that it should be removed that includes the flag name).
If it was something complicated that affected a lot of behavior then you would want to parameterize the test so that all (or at least most) of the test cases would run both ways. You can do a search for
@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
to see a number of examples in our existing tests. Note that to skip specific tests with some options you can use org.junit.Assume