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

test: improve test-gc-http-client-timeout #23184

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lundibundi
Copy link
Member

@lundibundi lundibundi commented Sep 30, 2018

  • decrease number of requests 500 -> 300
  • extract 'cb' to a file-local function

This should make test more reliable and less resource intensive.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

Also, by moving for-loop of getall calls into the server callback I managed to run this with '-j 32 --repeat 1920' on a 4 core, 8 thread machine. Though this removes 'surefire' timeouts (due to a server being unavailable) this test will still get the timeouts due to the sheer amount of requests being made. Therefore if it's okay I'll make the change.

Refs: #23066
(not fixes as this still fails in parallel on '-j 32 --repeat 1920' locally)

* decrease number of requests 500 -> 300
* extract 'cb' to a file-local function

This should make test more reliable and less resource intensive.
@lundibundi lundibundi self-assigned this Sep 30, 2018
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Sep 30, 2018
@lundibundi lundibundi changed the title test: harden test-gc-http-client-timeout test: improve test-gc-http-client-timeout Sep 30, 2018
Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! :)

@lundibundi
Copy link
Member Author

@lundibundi lundibundi added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Oct 1, 2018
@lundibundi
Copy link
Member Author

lundibundi commented Oct 1, 2018

@addaleax @BridgeAR @thefourtheye what do you think of this suggestion

Also, by moving for-loop of getall calls into the server callback I managed to run this with '-j 32 --repeat 1920' on a 4 core, 8 thread machine. Though this removes 'surefire' timeouts (due to a server being unavailable) this test will still get the timeouts due to the sheer amount of requests being made. Therefore if it's okay I'll make the change.

I mentioned in the first post?

Edit: resume CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17552/

@danbev
Copy link
Contributor

danbev commented Oct 4, 2018

Landed in 69a422b.

@danbev danbev closed this Oct 4, 2018
danbev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2018
* decrease number of requests 500 -> 300
* extract 'cb' to a file-local function

This should make test more reliable and less resource intensive.

PR-URL: #23184
Refs: #23066
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor

@lundibundi That suggestion can be done separately. Get a PR up, let's see what people think.

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2018
* decrease number of requests 500 -> 300
* extract 'cb' to a file-local function

This should make test more reliable and less resource intensive.

PR-URL: #23184
Refs: #23066
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2018
* decrease number of requests 500 -> 300
* extract 'cb' to a file-local function

This should make test more reliable and less resource intensive.

PR-URL: #23184
Refs: #23066
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants