[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ >I think the fact that the increased timeouts helped stabilize the tests is >helpful information. I did not look into the issue itself yet, but it may help >pinpointing the real cause. @mzidek It is not helpful because it does not explain why it failed. And it still might fail in future. Failures in test will be a HUUUGE problem in modularity[1]. Because if test fails then module cannot be released and it would also block rebuilding of other modules which will depend on sssd (freeIPA) I know that sleeps in tests are terrible (they hide bugs) downstream tests use sleep on many places and therefore didn't catch bug fixed by commit https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/c/d4063e9a21a4e203bee7e0a0144fa8cabb14cc46 So we need to understand why test failed and explain it either in commit message or it comment. e.g. https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/c/b3074dca3acebd91437ef13d3329d6d65d655215 >Anyways, I do not have any motivation to work further in this PR (and that's >the reason I did not assigned the bug to myself). @fidencio Me neither, I have enough fighting/debbuging downstream tests. But all members need to be familiar with upstream tests. [1] https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/ """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321314040 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests mzidek-rh commented: """ I think the fact that the increased timeouts helped stabilize the tests is helpful information. I did not look into the issue itself yet, but it may help pinpointing the real cause. So I am linking this PR to the issue as an attempt to fix it with possible value as fallback once we learn more about the issue and what is causing it. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321305533 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests fidencio commented: """ Anyways, I do not have any motivation to work further in this PR (and that's the reason I did not assigned the bug to myself). I'm closing the PR as rejected. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321266553 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests fidencio commented: """ @lslebodn, I was just pointing to @jhrozek the tests that have been failing (as he asked). """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321266231 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ On (09/08/17 12:24), fidencio wrote: >@jhrozek: about the 15 seconds timeout, please, take a look at: >http://vm-058-233.$ABC/logs/job/72/75/debian_testing/ci-build-debug/ci-make-intgcheck.log > and >http://vm-058-233.$ABC/logs/job/72/59/fedora23/ci-build-debug/ci-make-intgcheck.log > are some examples of this test failing. > That is not a sufficient justification for increasing sleep in test. Are you sure it is not a bug in sssd/tevent? Unfortunately, we cannot see sssd_secrets.log in dir http://vm-058-233.$ABC/logs/job/72/75/debian_testing/ci-build-debug/intg/pfx/var/log/sssd/ And anyway; `debug_level` was very likely not increased in `test_idle_timeout` unless you use extra patch on top of git master. LS """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321258216 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests fidencio commented: """ @jhrozek: about the 15 seconds timeout, please, take a look at: http://vm-058-233.$ABC/logs/job/72/75/debian_testing/ci-build-debug/ci-make-intgcheck.log and http://vm-058-233.$ABC/logs/job/72/59/fedora23/ci-build-debug/ci-make-intgcheck.log are some examples of this test failing. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321239855 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ FYI: here is an example why you cannot blindly increase timeout in test. Lets assume that we have a failing test which should test midpoint refresh for some entry in cache. Let say that default cache timeout is 2000. I would expect that entry will be automatically refreshed after 1000 seconds. But test is failing. Therefore we decide to double sleep from 1000 -> 2000 and test will pass. However you will not test midpoint refresh of entry. Because entry as not refreshed bit "midpoint automatic task" in advance but it was refreshed because it was expired. And your commit does not explain why it pass on fedora but does not pass on debian. In another word; it is almost the same as disabling test. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321237851 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests jhrozek commented: """ So are the issues because enumeration hasn't ran yet or because we are in the middle of enumeration when the test checks? In general I would expect the enumeration code to run each period as specified, but there might be a bit of processing after the period has concluded and before the enumeration results are processed. Also, I wonder if it was more systematic to instead poll for the sysdb changes instead of waiting, maybe that would make it possible to finish the test sooner? (I forget if we store the lastUSN in sysdb, but perhaps checking for that could be used). About the second patch, did we have problems with the 15 seconds timeout at all? I did see quite a few issues with smaller timeouts during development, but not with the 15 seconds one.. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321237929 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ Changing hardcoded timeout without explanation "why" is not sufficient solution. (because you might hide a bug). And purpose of tests is to find bugs. Therefore NACK to 1st patch. NACK to 2nd patch because 15 seconds is enough as it is already explained in the comment. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321232993 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ Changing hardcoded timeout without explanation "why" is not sufficient solution. (because you might hide a bug). And purpose of tests is to find bugs. Therefore NACK to 1st patch. NACK to 2nd patch because 15 seconds is enough as it is already explained in commit message. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321232993 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
[SSSD] [sssd PR#345][comment] Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345 Title: #345: Improve the situation of recurrent failing CI tests lslebodn commented: """ Changing hardcoded timeout without explanation "why" is not sufficient solution. (because you might hide a bug). And purpose of tests is to find bugs. Therefer NACK to 1st patch. NACK to 2nd patch because 15 seconds is enough as it is already explained in commit message. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/345#issuecomment-321232993 ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
