zjncs opened a new pull request, #5630:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/pull/5630

   Closes #5629
   
   ## Problem
   
   Four tests (three TopicPage, one AlertsPage) chain the most sequential 
awaits in their files and intermittently blew the default 20s timeout under 
parallel load while always passing in isolation — the create-dialog test 
measures **7.1s** filtered (2.8x margin) and failed at **21.9s** during a 
machine-slow period; the same three TopicPage tests timed out in **both** of 
two consecutive full parallel runs. Thin headroom by construction, not logic 
bugs.
   
   ## Fix (test-only)
   
   - The create-dialog test's 8-char `user.type` becomes a single 
`fireEvent.change` (the field's intent is the submitted value)
   - The four heavy chains get an explicit `45000` timeout (vitest's third 
argument) with comments documenting the load-sensitivity
   
   ## Verification
   
   - Both files in isolation: TopicPage **32/32**, AlertsPage **28/28**; `tsc 
--noEmit` clean
   - **Full parallel suite (the flake condition): zero TopicPage and zero 
AlertsPage failures** where the previous runs produced exactly these four 
timeouts. The remaining failures in that run are the three ConsumerPage 
interval-race tests (fixed by the companion PR #5626, a separate branch) plus 
one MetricsExplorer sighting outside this change's scope
   
   ## Collision note
   
   TopicPage.test.tsx is touched by #5572 (hunks ~1060+) and #5442/#5443/#5444 
(hunks @@660+) — this change's regions (~411-430, ~793-810, ~810-870) are 
disjoint. AlertsPage.test.tsx occupants' hunks sit at @@294/727/759/817 — the 
changed test (~849-912) is disjoint, though semantically adjacent to #5558's 
confirm-dialog additions (this change only adds a timeout to an existing test).


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to