Skip to content

Conversation

@algorandskiy
Copy link
Contributor

@algorandskiy algorandskiy commented Jul 31, 2024

Summary

The test in question uses a combination of automatic commits and a manual commit triggering. Stopping commitSyncer in the middle of the test creates a race condition between enqueueing and consuming - it is likely a task enqueued after commitSyncer is done draining and exiting. This leaves us with one element in deferredCommits (that is OK) and one extra accountsWriting wait group element (not OK on close if commitSyncer is active). Given a later reloadLedger call leads to restarting commitSyncer, re-initalization the queue but preserving accountsWriting value that is one off and drives infinite wait on closing.

The fix is just updates the test to prevent the race above. It is also possible to reset accountsWriting in trackerRegistry.initialize but it looks useful to catch closing errors in our unit tests exercising various closing scenarios.

Failure sample with debug logs from #6088

Test Plan

This is a test fix.

…itted

The test in question uses a combination of automatic commits and a manual commit triggering.
Stopping commitSyncer in the middle of the test creates a race condition between
enqueueing and consuming - it is likely a task enqueued after commitSyncer is done draining
and exiting. This leaves us with one element in deferredCommits (that is OK) and one extra
accountsWriting wait group element (not OK on close if commitSyncer is active).
Given a later reloadLedger call leads to restarting commitSyncer, re-initalization the queue
but preserving accountsWriting value that is one off and drives infinite wait on closing.

The fix is just updates the test to prevent the race above.
It is also possible to reset accountsWriting in trackerRegistry.initialize but it looks useful
to catch closing errors in our unit tests exercising various closing scenarios.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.26%. Comparing base (8eca278) to head (f8008f2).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6090      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.85%   56.26%   +0.41%     
==========================================
  Files         488      488              
  Lines       69610    69610              
==========================================
+ Hits        38879    39167     +288     
+ Misses      28045    27787     -258     
+ Partials     2686     2656      -30     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants