-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 271
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: Fix coverage workflow #1382
Conversation
olix0r
commented
Nov 18, 2021
- Avoid building the binary target, since it slows down the build
- Use --skip-clean to use the cached build
- Fetch a pre-build tarpaulin binary (saves ~5m)
- Mark flakey tests as flakey
* Avoid building the binary target, since it slows down the build * Use --skip-clean to use the cached build * Fetch a pre-build tarpaulin binary (saves ~5m) * Mark flakey tests as flakey
@@ -1191,6 +1191,8 @@ mod transport { | |||
test_tcp_connect(TcpFixture::outbound()).await; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// XXX This test is flakey when running coverage tests. | |||
#[cfg_attr(not(feature = "flaky_tests"), ignore)] |
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.
i believe the flakey_tests
feature is disabled when running the normal CI test job, as well, so these tests will now never run on CI. should we have a separate cfg to disable them only under coverage?
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.
I'm pretty sure these tests can actually be flakey in ci too :/ I don't have a good catalog of flakey test failures, but they show up in normal CI runs from time to time. So, I'd really love to figure out how to test this stuff better in general...
I guess we could add a very_flaky_test
feature for now, though.
@hawkw please take another look -- we add a |
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.
okay, lgtm!
the fact that so many of the "flaky" tests are just consistently broken is pretty sad, we should definitely fix those (after determining if they're even still relevant?) but the coverage change is 👍
This release includes no user-facing changes. The proxy's outbound HTTP router has been refactored to support upcoming changes. --- * build(deps): bump serde_json from 1.0.70 to 1.0.71 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1383) * ci: Run dependabot updates at 2AM PST (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1384) * build(deps): bump tower from 0.4.10 to 0.4.11 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1385) * ci: Fix coverage workflow (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1382) * outbound: Use per-route services in routing stack (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1380) * build(deps): bump tracing-subscriber from 0.3.1 to 0.3.2 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1387) * build(deps): bump libc from 0.2.107 to 0.2.108 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1386) * build(deps): bump futures from 0.3.17 to 0.3.18 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1388)
This release includes no user-facing changes. The proxy's outbound HTTP router has been refactored to support upcoming changes. --- * build(deps): bump serde_json from 1.0.70 to 1.0.71 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1383) * ci: Run dependabot updates at 2AM PST (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1384) * build(deps): bump tower from 0.4.10 to 0.4.11 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1385) * ci: Fix coverage workflow (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1382) * outbound: Use per-route services in routing stack (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1380) * build(deps): bump tracing-subscriber from 0.3.1 to 0.3.2 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1387) * build(deps): bump libc from 0.2.107 to 0.2.108 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1386) * build(deps): bump futures from 0.3.17 to 0.3.18 (linkerd/linkerd2-proxy#1388)