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

unit tests: enable CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener #314

Closed
Yuval-Ariel opened this issue Dec 25, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #354
Closed

unit tests: enable CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener #314

Yuval-Ariel opened this issue Dec 25, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #354
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@Yuval-Ariel
Copy link
Contributor

CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener was disabled since it failed on several branches and wasnt considered a serious issue. fix the unit test correctly

@Yuval-Ariel Yuval-Ariel added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 25, 2022
@Yuval-Ariel Yuval-Ariel self-assigned this Jan 2, 2023
@Yuval-Ariel
Copy link
Contributor Author

running the test separately passes.
i was able to reproduce the failure by running the test in a loop:
while ./compaction_service_test --gtest_filter=CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener; do sleep 1; done
while the system was busy.

error is:
[ RUN ] CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener
db/compaction/compaction_service_test.cc:782: Failure
Value of: result.second
Actual: false
Expected: true
db/compaction/compaction_service_test.cc:788: Failure
Value of: num == 1
Actual: false
Expected: true
[ FAILED ] CompactionServiceTest.RemoteEventListener (335 ms)

Yuval-Ariel added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
Yuval-Ariel added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 9, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
Yuval-Ariel added a commit that referenced this issue May 1, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
Yuval-Ariel added a commit that referenced this issue May 4, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
udi-speedb pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
udi-speedb pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
udi-speedb pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 4, 2023
the test assumes that each compaction job_id from the remote compaction
is unique but in fact all the job_ids are 1.
the test passed thus far since there was just 1 bg compaction by default.
once we increased it to 8, there could be concurrent remote compactions
which led to this error.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant