GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — test: make test-perf-hooks more robust and work with workers by joyeecheung · Pull Request #49197 · nodejs/node Conversation
|
|
From nodejs/reliability#638 this test has been failing 6 recent PRs, hopefully this makes the flake go away..
Example |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great!
Thank you!
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
i tried stress testing this too locally with |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I am not sure why it was in sequential in the first place, but I think on the safe side we can just keep it there in this PR and if it looks well in the CI, move it to parallel afterwards (otherwise one doesn't know which is causing a regression if there is a regression). |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Yeah makes sense! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| // Use a fairly large epsilon value, since we can only guarantee that the node | ||
| // process started up in 15 seconds. | ||
| assert(Math.abs(performance.timeOrigin - Date.now()) < 15000); | ||
| assert(testStartTime < 15000, `${testStartTime} >= 15000`); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit
| assert(testStartTime < 15000, `${testStartTime} >= 15000`); | |
| assert(testStartTime < 15000, `${testStartTime} ≥ 15000`); |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think in general we use >= in this codebase instead?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
By the way the failure also shows up on v20.x-staging https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-binary-armv7l/7027/RUN_SUBSET=js,nodes=ubuntu2004-armv7l/testReport/junit/(root)/sequential/test_perf_hooks/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Landed in ecde9d9 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Previously the test makes several assumptions about the absolute values of the nodeTiming fields, which can make the test flaky on slow machines. This patch rewrites the test to check the relative values instead. It also updates the test to make it work with workers instead of directly skipping in workers. PR-URL: #49197 Refs: nodejs/reliability#638 Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Previously the test makes several assumptions about the absolute values of the nodeTiming fields, which can make the test flaky on slow machines. This patch rewrites the test to check the relative values instead. It also updates the test to make it work with workers instead of directly skipping in workers. PR-URL: #49197 Refs: nodejs/reliability#638 Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Previously the test makes several assumptions about the absolute values of the nodeTiming fields, which can make the test flaky on slow machines. This patch rewrites the test to check the relative values instead. It also updates the test to make it work with workers instead of directly skipping in workers. PR-URL: nodejs/node#49197 Refs: nodejs/reliability#638 Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Previously the test makes several assumptions about the absolute values of the nodeTiming fields, which can make the test flaky on slow machines. This patch rewrites the test to check the relative values instead. It also updates the test to make it work with workers instead of directly skipping in workers. PR-URL: nodejs/node#49197 Refs: nodejs/reliability#638 Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.