> 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 > >
