-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
test: mark flaky tests as flaky #22330
Conversation
@joyeecheung sadly an error occured when I tried to trigger a build :( |
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16454/ cc @Trott @nodejs/testing |
Waiting on the container rebuilds |
sorry for the CI interruption with containers. restarted @ https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16456/ |
test/parallel/parallel.status
Outdated
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ prefix parallel | |||
[$system==win32] | |||
|
|||
[$system==linux] | |||
# https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/22308 | |||
test-cluster-master-kill: PASS,FLAKY | |||
test-cluster-master-error: PASS,FLAKY |
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.
The host/platform that these two were failing on has been removed from CI, so I think there's no need to mark them as flaky. (For what it's worth, they were failing 100% of the time and I'm not a fan of marking 100% failures as flaky.)
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.
On the other hand, I'd like to see Alpine 3.8 back in rotation. We're risking either ignoring Alpine 3.8 completely, or if we mark this as flaky we risk not fixing the underlying problem. Pick your poison.
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 also against adding this, since it'll create a permanent yellow CI, and that is desensitizing...
We have a tracking issue, and we have eyes on the problem, so the chances of loosing track are lower.
and again https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16457/ |
1a2f0f6
to
248296a
Compare
Removed the cluster errors. New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16461/ |
All the failures are git failures, so this should be ready to land Failures in job https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16461/ ubuntu1604-arm64See failures on test-packetnet-ubuntu1604-arm64-2:
ubuntu1604_sharedlibs_debug_x64See failures on test-softlayer-ubuntu1604_sharedlibs_container-x64-2:
ubuntu1604_sharedlibs_openssl110_x64See failures on test-softlayer-ubuntu1604_sharedlibs_container-x64-5:
|
Do note that the COLLABORATOR_GUIDE "Testing and CI" section says that those need to be fixed and re-run rather than disregarded and landed:
|
@Trott Ah, sorry about that, although in this case resuming the builds does not help because those are build failures. I am going to fix them in nodejs/build#1453 |
In the last 100 CI runs, these tests have failed too many unrelated PRs
Mark them as flaky for now so we can land PRs