Jalina2007 opened a new pull request, #7969:
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-seata/pull/7969
<!--
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
(the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
-->
<!-- Please make sure you have read and understood the contributing
guidelines -->
- [x] I have read the
[CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/apache/incubator-seata/blob/2.x/CONTRIBUTING.md)
guidelines.
- [ ] I have registered the PR
[changes](https://github.com/apache/incubator-seata/tree/2.x/changes).
### Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did
This change adds initial cluster state setup by publishing a
`ClusterChangeEvent` with term=1 at the start of both `watch()` and
`watch_withHttp2()` tests. It also corrects the HTTP/2 timeout in
`watch_withHttp2()` from 30ms to 30000ms. Before the change, the tests passed
in some cases and failed on the others. They passed in sequential builds
because `watch()` would set the server's static state to term=2, causing
`watch_withHttp2()` to receive an immediate response when it requested term=1,
making the 30ms timeout look sufficient. In parallel builds or isolated
execution, the tests failed (sometimes) because without the cached state, the
server would wait for the 2-second delayed event, exceeding the 30ms timeout.
By resetting the state to term=1 before each test, both tests now start with an
initial baseline and properly validate the long-polling behavior without giving
false positives.
### Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
<!-- If that, add "fixes #xxx" below in the next line, for example, fixes
#97. -->
fixes #7963
### Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?
### Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
### Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews
I’m new here, please let me know if anything in this PR should be done
differently
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
