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

CI: wait-for rather than 'assume' in Online DDL flow #16210

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Quick followup to #16017: there was an assumption that by the end of 3sec into the migration, this would hold:

assert.GreaterOrEqual(t, appliedDMLEnd-appliedDMLStart, int64(maxTableRows))

Normally that's correct, the number is actually 3 times larger than int64(maxTableRows) on GitHub CI. And yet, this is a source for flakiness on smaller testing runners.

This PR opts to actually wait for that value, with a max timeout of 1min, which is currently 60 times more than needed in GitHub CI, and still with high margins in slower runners.

Related Issue(s)

#16017

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team June 17, 2024 09:49
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jun 17, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jun 17, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jun 17, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jun 17, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team June 17, 2024 10:08
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.55%. Comparing base (6f85089) to head (02743d1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16210      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.58%   68.55%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1544     1544              
  Lines      197873   197873              
==========================================
- Hits       135716   135652      -64     
- Misses      62157    62221      +64     

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 135a6a8 into vitessio:main Jun 17, 2024
106 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the ci-upgrade-downgrade-onlineddl-flakiness branch June 17, 2024 10:29
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