Flaky tags were removed from the following tests after fixes were checked in:
GEODE-1731 GEODE-1148 GEODE-1364 GEODE-1804 GEODE-1147 GEODE-1384 For now GEODE-1448 remains flaky, even if the receiver port in use issue was resolved because a pause(10000) still remains in the test. The flaky tag will be removed after an alternative to the pause is found. Regards Nabarun On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 > > > On 5/10/2016 6:28 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I removed the flaky tags from the test in the WAN module. I went through > > the commits and made sure they had indeed removed the pauses. > > > > Please do let me know if I have missed something. Or if these these > tickets > > should still be marked flaky. > > > > ParallelGatewaySenderOperationsDUnitTest: > > GEODE-933: Flaky tag was removed - Wait.pause was no longer used. > > > > ParallelWANStatsDUnitTest > > GEODE-977: Was Flaky because stats were being read from the wrong VM > > > > Others: > > GEODE-1066: Wait criterions were replaced with Awaitility, also order of > > creating cache, regions and senders/receivers were modified. No > > wait.pauses were used. > > GEODE-1147: No wait.pause were present. It was assumed that refactoring > of > > the WANTestBase and the code had fixed the issue. > > GEODE-1148: Flaky tag was removed - Wait.pause was no longer used along > > with other modifications to make the test stable. > > GEODE-1207: Stopped WAN Locator Discovery Thread when locator is > stopped. No > > wait.pauses were used. > > GEODE-1011: Wait.pauses were removed. Code was modified to stabilize it. > > GEODE-1062: Thread.sleep was removed. Issue was resolved by refactoring > of > > WANTestBase. > > GEODE-1032: Listeners were put in to slow down the receivers. No > > wait.pauses were used. > > GEODE-1121: Memory configurations were changed to stabilize the test. No > > wait.pauses were used. > > > > Regards > > Nabarun > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:58 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >>> Please don't close flaky tickets or remove FlakyTest category unless > you > >>> know of a specific commit revision that makes some timing changes to > the > >>> test. Unless you replace all the Thread.sleeps with await() calls it's > >>> going to fail again when GC occurs during the test. Just because a test > >>> doesn't fail in 30+ runs, doesn't mean it's not flaky. > >>> > >>> ParallelGatewaySenderOperationsDUnitTest has a bunch of these calls: > >>> > >>> Wait.pause(2000); > >>> > >>> That's pretty much our definition of flaky. > >>> > >>> ParallelWANStatsDUnitTest is worse because it has even shorter sleeps: > >>> > >>> pause(200); > >>> > >>> I'm replacing the sleeps in the ManagementTestBase tests with > Awaitility > >>> calls and the tests are dropping from 5 minutes to 30 seconds per dunit > >>> class. So that's another huge motivator to get rid of these broken > >> sleeps. > >>> -Kirk > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> GEODE-933 and GEODE-977 are not reproducible either after run 30+ > >> times. > >>> So > >>>> they are not flaky and can be closed for now. > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >>>>> 1011, 1062, 1066, 1147 have been run 30+ times without reproduce. So > >>> it's > >>>>> not flaky. I think we can close them. If reproduced someday, we can > >>>>> re-open. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> I reviewed a bunch of CI failures today. I closed out duplicates > >> and > >>>>>> added the ‘CI’ label to JIRA tickets that were missing it. I just > >>>> posted a > >>>>>> big review to add the FlakyTest category to bugs with > >> non-reproducible > >>>>>> failures—pretty much any CI bug that is currently open. Your > >> comments > >>>> are > >>>>>> appreciated (I can push a feature branch if that’s easier): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52468/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I found several open issues where the flaky category had been > >> removed. > >>>>>> Can these be marked resolved? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> GEODE-933 > >>>>>> GEODE-977 > >>>>>> GEODE-1011 > >>>>>> GEODE-1062 > >>>>>> GEODE-1066 > >>>>>> GEODE-1147 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a suspicion that the following open issues are actually > >> fixed. > >>>>>> Any ideas? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> GEODE-1918 > >>>>>> GEODE-1333,1334,1335 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anthony > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -John > >> 503-504-8657 <(503)%20504-8657> > >> john.blum10101 (skype) > >> > >
