-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
Fix flaky propagator test (case19_rep_policy_placement_test) #222
Fix flaky propagator test (case19_rep_policy_placement_test) #222
Conversation
0937dbe
to
d0eb2af
Compare
Or I can reset Reconciler before each |
/hold for discussion |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm good with removing this test as I don't see much value in it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm also fine with taking it out since the metrics haven't really gotten a lot of attention. It could be interesting if the metrics really take off because of some change and this test detects it, but I think that seems unlikely at this point.
)[0] | ||
afterTotal, err = strconv.Atoi(afterString) | ||
Expect(err).ShouldNot(HaveOccurred()) | ||
Expect(afterTotal - beforeTotal).Should(Equal(2)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the one I was thinking could alternatively just be:
Expect(afterTotal - beforeTotal).Should(Equal(Or(2,3)))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It should be 2. because managed1, managed2 added. This happens only "minimum"
Expect(err).ShouldNot(HaveOccurred()) | ||
Expect(afterTotal - beforeTotal).Should(Equal(2)) | ||
}) | ||
It("should reconcile twice when managed1 and managed2 are created by placementRule", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have a strong opinion, but if we keep the test should it just be this test node that gets removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean just remove the test after line 166?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As an alternative, yes, but @mprahl indicated the tests don't have a lot of value, which I'm fine with, so removing it is also fine with me.
Remove case 19 that is checking reconcile numbers because this test is flaky, and hard to reset the metrics, we already verified our reconcile work properly Signed-off-by: yiraeChristineKim <[email protected]>
d0eb2af
to
f1ca87c
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mprahl, yiraeChristineKim The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/unhold |
bceafae
into
open-cluster-management-io:main
No description provided.