RUM-9130: Fix flaky TraceWriterTest M log error and proceed W write() { serialization failed }#2565
Merged
aleksandr-gringauz merged 1 commit intoMar 25, 2025
Conversation
aleksandr-gringauz
force-pushed
the
aleksandr-gringauz/rum-9130/fix-flacky-trace-writer-test
branch
from
March 24, 2025 17:12
bb36104 to
31b362d
Compare
aleksandr-gringauz
marked this pull request as ready for review
March 24, 2025 17:26
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2565 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 70.11% 70.10% -0.01%
===========================================
Files 803 803
Lines 30144 30146 +2
Branches 5046 5046
===========================================
- Hits 21135 21133 -2
+ Misses 7610 7607 -3
- Partials 1399 1406 +7
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
0xnm
previously approved these changes
Mar 24, 2025
Comment on lines
+332
to
+338
| private fun generateSpanListWithPriorities(forge: Forge, priorities: Set<Int>): MutableList<DDSpan> { | ||
| return forge.aList { | ||
| SpanForgeryFactory { frg, span -> | ||
| span.samplingPriority = frg.anElementFrom(priorities) | ||
| }.getForgery(forge) | ||
| }.toMutableList() | ||
| } |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it can be done simpler, without the need to do changes in SpanForgeryFactory (plus it can be an extension method):
Suggested change
| private fun generateSpanListWithPriorities(forge: Forge, priorities: Set<Int>): MutableList<DDSpan> { | |
| return forge.aList { | |
| SpanForgeryFactory { frg, span -> | |
| span.samplingPriority = frg.anElementFrom(priorities) | |
| }.getForgery(forge) | |
| }.toMutableList() | |
| } | |
| private fun Forge.spansWithPriorities(forge: Forge, priorities: Set<Int>): MutableList<DDSpan> { | |
| return aList { | |
| getForgery<DDSpan>().apply { span.samplingPriority = anElementFrom(priorities) } | |
| }.toMutableList() | |
| } |
but I'm okay with keeping the proposed change as well.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it can be done simpler
I did it the way you describe at first. But this actually is a different solution that didn't quite work.
- Suppose
SpanForgeryFactorysetssamplingPrioritytoPrioritySampling.USER_DROPhere. - Then we change it the way you describe to
PrioritySampling.UNSET.PrioritySampling.UNSETsatisfies the condition!in DROP_SAMPLING_PRIORITIES, it was used in the test before, so we probably should not forget about it. - Here
PrioritySampling.UNSETis ignored. - We end up with a failed test because we have
PrioritySampling.USER_DROPas priority.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
okay, makes sense then for PrioritySampling.UNSET case
Comment on lines
+95
to
+96
| private val KEEP_SAMPLING_PRIORITIES = setOf(PrioritySampling.SAMPLER_KEEP, PrioritySampling.USER_KEEP) | ||
| internal val KEEP_AND_UNSET_SAMPLING_PRIORITIES = KEEP_SAMPLING_PRIORITIES + PrioritySampling.UNSET |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably these are needed only for tests? maybe put them in the TraceWriterTest?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought it is better this way because if you put KEEP_AND_UNSET_SAMPLING_PRIORITIES in test source set, when it is needed in the main source set later we will end up with duplicate code with very high chance. These things should probably be grouped together even if some are needed only in tests for now.
jonathanmos
previously approved these changes
Mar 25, 2025
aleksandr-gringauz
dismissed stale reviews from jonathanmos and 0xnm
via
March 25, 2025 11:56
887d426
aleksandr-gringauz
force-pushed
the
aleksandr-gringauz/rum-9130/fix-flacky-trace-writer-test
branch
from
March 25, 2025 11:56
31b362d to
887d426
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
just resolved conflicts |
… { serialization failed }
aleksandr-gringauz
force-pushed
the
aleksandr-gringauz/rum-9130/fix-flacky-trace-writer-test
branch
from
March 25, 2025 11:57
887d426 to
7faab76
Compare
0xnm
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2025
aleksandr-gringauz
deleted the
aleksandr-gringauz/rum-9130/fix-flacky-trace-writer-test
branch
March 25, 2025 17:04
3 tasks
aleksandr-gringauz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2025
…-flacky-trace-writer-test
RUM-9130: Fix flaky TraceWriterTest M log error and proceed W write() { serialization failed }
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
Fixed a flaky test. Had to parametrize
SpanForgeryFactoryin order to control forging thesamplingPriorityfield. I am not sure it is a canonical way of doing things so feel free to criticize.Motivation
What inspired you to submit this pull request?
Additional Notes
Anything else we should know when reviewing?
Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)