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

Improve t0240 #1781

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 3, 2015
Merged

Improve t0240 #1781

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 3, 2015

Conversation

chriscool
Copy link
Contributor

This is a small series of small cleanups.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <[email protected]>
@jbenet jbenet added the status/in-progress In progress label Oct 3, 2015
@chriscool
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like the tests that failed sometimes fail according to comments above them.

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Oct 3, 2015

@whyrusleeping the "cannot resolve entry stuff" is that the new resolve tests?

jbenet added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2015
@jbenet jbenet merged commit 47a353d into master Oct 3, 2015
@jbenet jbenet deleted the improve-t0240 branch October 3, 2015 22:00
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

@jbenet yeah, it looks like some operation that occurs before we do the 'expect resolve to fail' checks is taking such a long time that the republish triggers. We can do one of two things, leave this as a reminder to ourselves to fix the dht code so it doesnt do that (this is nothing new), or we can add explicit timeouts to all of those operations so this cant happen (hides the problem)

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Oct 4, 2015

i dont think we should have intermittent failures. expected failures can be tagged as such and fixed. if we have a reliable way to repro the error, then have that as an expected failure and then add explicit timeouts here?

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

i think its random based on the layout of the keys generated by the nodes.

@chriscool chriscool mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2015
88 tasks
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