durin42 added a comment.
In D8189#123280 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8189#123280>, @marmoute wrote: > By using explicit wait on signal (through the fs) that each process reached the appropriate file. We avoid flackyness. There are already multiple use of this approach in the test suite, that does not suffer from flackyness (unlike the wheelbarrow of flaky test relying on sleep for sync). You avoid flakyness iff the test manages to finish this step in under 20 seconds (in the next change, as an example). Which is to say, this is still a flake waiting to happen, you've just made it less likely. I think it might be better to poll more often in the script and not even take a timeout: sleep forever waiting for the condition, and if it never comes let the test timeout at the runner level. Thoughts? I'm also not happy about the 1-second floor this puts on the step. Doesn't sleep(1) support sub-second sleeps on all platforms at this point? REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8189/new/ REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8189 To: marmoute, #hg-reviewers Cc: durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
