> On March 28, 2016, 5:03 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote:
> > FWIW, there is als this very old review requests that is talking about the 
> > same tests https://reviews.apache.org/r/31380/diff/1#index_header. What 
> > does Brian mean with "calling .converge"?
> 
> John Sirois wrote:
>     He means the calls to this in the test code: 
> https://github.com/twitter/commons/blob/master/src/python/twitter/common/testing/clock.py#L109
>     I'm also interested in that approach since the failures I saw from 
> AuroraBot in https://reviews.apache.org/r/45366/ were both off by the epsilon.

I've opted to skip the test in the latest patch.  I'm not confident that i have 
the necessary skill to fix this test in the desired way and ensure it is not 
flaky.


- Bill


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45372/#review125628
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 27, 2016, 8:41 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45372/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 27, 2016, 8:41 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Posting this patch to at least start a conversation on fixing this test; i've 
> noticed it flaking pretty frequently lately.  Here i take the quick and dirty 
> approach of removing the sleep and glossing over the `total_latency_secs` 
> value.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/executor/common/test_health_checker.py 
> 19c4f76347e34374c29974c182d1f4c118bcb18d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45372/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> None yet
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to