Skip to content

hack: Have TIMEOUT take -test.count into account when testing for flakiness#38693

Merged
cpuguy83 merged 1 commit intomoby:masterfrom
tiborvass:fix-timeout-bug
Feb 8, 2019
Merged

hack: Have TIMEOUT take -test.count into account when testing for flakiness#38693
cpuguy83 merged 1 commit intomoby:masterfrom
tiborvass:fix-timeout-bug

Conversation

@tiborvass
Copy link
Contributor

@tiborvass tiborvass commented Feb 8, 2019

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 8, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #38693 into master will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #38693      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.56%   36.52%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         610      610              
  Lines       45395    45395              
==========================================
- Hits        16598    16581      -17     
- Misses      26505    26517      +12     
- Partials     2292     2297       +5

@tiborvass
Copy link
Contributor Author

This fixes a failure when TESTARRAY in hack/make/test-integration-flaky includes TestBuildWithHugeFile which takes between 100s and 150s each run. Which means that with -test.count=5 it goes beyond the 5m timeout set with -test.timeout=5m.

@tiborvass tiborvass changed the title hack: TIMEOUT takes TEST_REPEAT number into account hack: Have TIMEOUT take -test.count into account when testing for flakiness Feb 8, 2019
Copy link
Member

@thaJeztah thaJeztah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks for the added comment

@olljanat
Copy link
Contributor

olljanat commented Feb 8, 2019

@tiborvass this is why I like open source so much. I can introduce idea and then someone else will improve it. Awesome and thanks 😀

@tiborvass
Copy link
Contributor Author

@olljanat thanks :) feel free to approve and merge!

@olljanat
Copy link
Contributor

olljanat commented Feb 8, 2019

@olljanat thanks :) feel free to approve and merge!

I would but only maintainers can do so...
maybe @cpuguy83 ?

Copy link
Member

@cpuguy83 cpuguy83 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants