-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
[MINOR] Fix flaky test testCreateNewInstantTimes #13032
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
Conversation
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.
10 sec is not sufficient is it? :(
Seems like it. I've added logs also in case it fails again so we know the exact instant times from the test. |
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.
Looks like the test is passing. Curious about why generating time is taking long.
@@ -147,7 +147,9 @@ public void testCreateNewInstantTimes() throws IOException { | |||
String newInstantTime = metaClient.createNewInstantTime(false); | |||
assertTrue(!instantTimesSoFar.contains(newInstantTime)); | |||
instantTimesSoFar.add(newInstantTime); | |||
assertTrue((Long.parseLong(newInstantTime) - Long.parseLong(newCommitTimeInUTC)) < 10000L); | |||
assertTrue((Long.parseLong(newInstantTime) - Long.parseLong(newCommitTimeInUTC)) < 60000L, |
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.
Is InProcess lock taking so long?
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've added corresponding comment below #13032 (comment).
I rebased the branch on top of the latest master with CI improvements. |
Flink IT failure is irrelevant. |
@yihua , @codope , @nsivabalan , @danny0405 , I've also spent some time on this flaky test before I found this PR. I propose to clarify the situation with this UT by merge of #13042 I've added clarification in the comment to this test in mentioned PR:
and reduced number of iterations and max permitted diff. The failure could be easily reproduced locally by changing to 10 s max and I've checked locally, that if I change default value of |
(cherry picked from commit 4f63cc0)
(cherry picked from commit 4f63cc0)
(cherry picked from commit 4f63cc0)
(cherry picked from commit 4f63cc0)
Change Logs
As above.
Impact
Fixes test flakiness.
Risk level
none
Documentation Update
none
Contributor's checklist