Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Limit a timeout in testing robustness validation #16764

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 6, 2024

Conversation

serathius
Copy link
Member

@serathius serathius commented Oct 16, 2023

As part of #15598 I was working on re-implementing the history patching to avoid too much space explosion. One thing I noticed that it's not easy to reproduce linearization timeout if patching is totally disabled.

To ensure that patching is working and helping reduce the runtime, I have generated and added a case to TestValidation that is expected to run over 5 minutes without any patching

Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.

@serathius serathius mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2023
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

cc @ahrtr

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

ping @ahrtr

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 17, 2023

a quick question before I take a closer look, why add so many json files into the repo?

Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 17, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed after 21 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Mar 17, 2024
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry for forgetting about this PR and your question.

a quick question before I take a closer look, why add so many json files into the repo?

Those are report files from robustness tests, that I added to the repo for testing. They are used to ensure there is no breaking change nor performance regression on robustness testing.

There is a testdata directory that you can just add a robustness report from CI and a test will run robustness validation on it. It's pretty useful to allow reproduction of bugs in robustness test framework.

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Mar 17, 2024
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

ping @ahrtr

Copy link
Member

@ahrtr ahrtr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

Please rebase this PR before merging. Previously I ran into a couple of cases which github did not identify the conflict.

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Done

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@serathius serathius force-pushed the robustness-validate-timeout branch 5 times, most recently from 382a132 to 5b6db42 Compare March 25, 2024 20:39
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

It will be more tricky than anticipated :(

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@serathius serathius force-pushed the robustness-validate-timeout branch 4 times, most recently from 477546f to e97d96a Compare April 6, 2024 10:15
@serathius serathius changed the title Limit a timeout in testing and add a scenario to confirm history patching is providing a speedup Limit a timeout in testing robustness validation Apr 6, 2024
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, I run into a problem with creating a cpu bound test that will execute in CI in a predictable time.
Locally on my machine the test runs 2s, while in CI it times out after 60s.

Will remove adding the scenario for now.

@serathius serathius force-pushed the robustness-validate-timeout branch from e97d96a to 7ebd4ba Compare April 6, 2024 10:20
Signed-off-by: Marek Siarkowicz <siarkowicz@google.com>
@serathius serathius force-pushed the robustness-validate-timeout branch from 7ebd4ba to e2bb8c6 Compare April 6, 2024 10:29
@serathius serathius merged commit 10657ef into etcd-io:main Apr 6, 2024
44 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants