Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
test: fix flaky child-process-fork-regr-gh-2847 - #5422
Conversation
mscdex
commented
Feb 24, 2016
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/1734/ The CI infrastructure isn't all back up yet, but some nodes are. |
Trott
commented
Feb 24, 2016
LGTM if CI is green. I de-ES6-ized it and made sure it still failed on io.js v3 so it still catches the regression it's designed to catch. |
mscdex
commented
Feb 25, 2016
mscdex
commented
Feb 25, 2016
santigimeno
commented
Feb 25, 2016
2 failures out of 9999. Things have improved but not completely :( |
fa836e7 to
a83b311Comparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 25, 2016
Updated the PR so it ignores errors when sending the 2nd handle to the worker |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it would be better to at least check that it's a possibly expected error?
2dfbfe9 to
4e8a0caComparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 25, 2016
PR update to address @mscdex comment. Thanks |
mscdex
commented
Feb 25, 2016
New stress test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/526/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Might be good just to follow the format of the previous case of swallowing ECONNREFUSED in the file: https://github.com/santigimeno/node/blob/regre-gh-2847/test/parallel/test-child-process-fork-regr-gh-2847.js#L19-L23
Trott
commented
Feb 25, 2016
If it passes CI and stress test, LGTM. (Left a nit, but like all nits, it can be ignored. Up to you.) |
Trott
commented
Feb 25, 2016
Oh, and I ran the current version (with ES6-isms replaced) against iojs v3 and it fails as expected, so that's good. |
santigimeno
commented
Feb 25, 2016
mscdex
commented
Feb 25, 2016
@santigimeno Maybe try the logging first? |
4e8a0ca to
e1a3059Comparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 25, 2016
Ok, I have followed @Trott recommendations and throw if error is different from |
mscdex
commented
Feb 25, 2016
New stress test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/527/ |
mhdawson
commented
Feb 26, 2016
Trott
commented
Feb 26, 2016
@santigimeno I think it will work if you swallow |
santigimeno
commented
Feb 27, 2016
@Trott yes, but there are other I will push a new PR with more logs |
e1a3059 to
1ba5d2bComparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 27, 2016
Can somebody run the stress test again? Thanks |
mscdex
commented
Feb 27, 2016
New stress test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/546/ |
Trott
commented
Feb 27, 2016
And just in case it's challenging to find the corresponding console log: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/546/nodes=ppcbe-fedora20/console |
1ba5d2b to
f192900Comparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 28, 2016
I think (hope) it's now fixed. Can you run the stress test? Thanks! |
mscdex
commented
Feb 28, 2016
New stress test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/551/ |
Trott
commented
Feb 28, 2016
That looks like it worked. |
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the test. Also ignore the errors that might happen when sending the second handle to the worker because it may already have exited.
f192900 to
1e36bc0Comparesantigimeno
commented
Feb 29, 2016
Fixed linting error. |
Trott
commented
Feb 29, 2016
mscdex
commented
Feb 29, 2016
CI is green. |
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the test. Also ignore the errors that might happen when sending the second handle to the worker because it may already have exited. PR-URL: nodejs#5422 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Trott
commented
Feb 29, 2016
Landed in 98b721e |
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the test. Also ignore the errors that might happen when sending the second handle to the worker because it may already have exited. PR-URL: #5422 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the test. Also ignore the errors that might happen when sending the second handle to the worker because it may already have exited. PR-URL: #5422 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the test. Also ignore the errors that might happen when sending the second handle to the worker because it may already have exited. PR-URL: #5422 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
According to the explanation in nodejs#3635#issuecomment-157714683 And as a continuation to nodejs#5422 we also ignore EMFILE "No more file descriptors are available,so no more files can be opened" PR-URL: nodejs#12698Fixes: nodejs#10286 Refs: nodejs#3635 (comment) Refs: nodejs#5178 Refs: nodejs#5179 Refs: nodejs#4005 Refs: nodejs#5121 Refs: nodejs#5422 Refs: nodejs#12621 (comment) Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
According to the explanation in #3635#issuecomment-157714683 And as a continuation to #5422 we also ignore EMFILE "No more file descriptors are available,so no more files can be opened" PR-URL: #12698Fixes: #10286 Refs: #3635 (comment) Refs: #5178 Refs: #5179 Refs: #4005 Refs: #5121 Refs: #5422 Refs: #12621 (comment) Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Pull Request check-list
Please make sure to review and check all of these items:
make -j8 test(UNIX) orvcbuild test nosign(Windows) pass withthis change (including linting)?
test (or a benchmark) included?
existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?
Affected core subsystem(s)
test
Description of change
The test is still failing sometimes because when trying to establish the
second connection, the server is already closed. Bring back the code
that handled this case and was removed in the last refactoring of the
test: 4e4b260.