Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34k
bpo-41682: fixed flaky test test_sendfile_close_peer_in_the_middle_of_receiving#30845
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
kumaraditya303 commented Jan 24, 2022 • edited by bedevere-bot
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited by bedevere-bot
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
kumaraditya303 commented Jan 24, 2022
...And we finally have green CI 🎉 |
kumaraditya303 commented Jan 24, 2022
erlend-aasland left a comment
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.
Assuming Guido's reasoning is correct, this is IMO the correct fix. LGTM!
(But note that this test has been flakey for two years; maybe there was another reason for the failures before?)
erlend-aasland left a comment • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
kumaraditya303 commented Jan 24, 2022
I was already trying to find the size of DATA based on some stack overflow answers before Guido provided his reasoning as I once tried making DATA very high and it worked so I knew it was about fine tuning the DATA length. |
kumaraditya303 commented Jan 24, 2022
@erlend-aasland |
erlend-aasland commented Jan 24, 2022
Great, I see it. Thanks. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fidget-Spinner commented Jan 24, 2022
I'm gonna test with buildbots. For now, please hold off on committing anything (well you can, but it'll make the buildbots status harder to track ;). If this works, we need to give you an award for saving thousands of contributors from this pain. |
bedevere-bot commented Jan 24, 2022
🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @Fidget-Spinner for commit 369390f 🤖 If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again. |
erlend-aasland commented Jan 24, 2022
We could consider giving this patch a NEWS entry, given the amount of frustration and gray hair this test has caused 😆 |
gvanrossum commented Jan 24, 2022
I'll leave this in Erlend's capable hands. |
erlend-aasland commented Jan 24, 2022 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Thanks for you input, @asvetlov! I would make the PR title and message more accurate before merging; maintaining a clear and self-documenting git history really helps when issues pop up again (I suspect this might do in a Windows release or five). Here's a quick 'n dirty suggestion, but feel free to word it differently: Other than that, I have no further remarks. (The failed buildbot is not related to this PR.) Here's your CI Janitor Award: 🏆🥇 Thanks for keeping the bots green! Thanks, Guido and Kumar, for the reasoning and the patch. (Andrew, Guido, or Ken can merge; I don't have the commit bit.) |
erlend-aasland commented Jan 24, 2022
(The bot that edit our PR comments in order to create bpo links can be very, very irritating at times...) |
miss-islington commented Jan 24, 2022
Thanks @kumaraditya303 for the PR, and @pablogsal for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9, 3.10. |
pablogsal commented Jan 24, 2022
Merged ;) |
bedevere-bot commented Jan 24, 2022
GH-30860 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch. |
bedevere-bot commented Jan 24, 2022
GH-30861 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit 1c705fd) Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <59607654+kumaraditya303@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 1c705fd) Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <59607654+kumaraditya303@users.noreply.github.com>
bedevere-bot commented Jan 24, 2022
|
vstinner commented Jan 25, 2022
Be careful next time you merge a PR, the merged commit title is just "fixed flaky test" which doesn't mention test_asyncio or the bpo number, so no comment was added to https://bugs.python.org/issue41682 That's the annoying part with GH PR: it's possible to change the title and description in GitHub, and then get I completly different title and description when you merge it... |
pablogsal commented Jan 25, 2022
I also used the GitHub phone app to merge it which o think made things even more confusing as I didn't see that the commit title would be different :( |
vstinner commented Jan 25, 2022
I agree, the UI on a phone is "not great" :-( Especially for a merge operation. |
…_receiving (pythonGH-30845) (python#30861) (cherry picked from commit 1c705fd) Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <59607654+kumaraditya303@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <59607654+kumaraditya303@users.noreply.github.com>
https://bugs.python.org/issue41682