On (03/12/15 20:22), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:59:07PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (02/12/15 17:10), Michal Židek wrote: >> >Hi! >> > >> >I saw some integration tests failures recently, >> >and I think there is a race condition between the >> >enumeration refresh timeout and the sleeps >> >after some operations that wait for this timeout. >> >SSSD fails to populate changes from LDAP in time >> >and some asserts can fail because of this. >> > >> >So far I saw 4 tests to fail like this, which >> >is already quite a lot. >> > >> >The attached patch modifies the timeout values >> >and hopefully removes the issue. >> > >> >Michal >> >> >From b724db15ce0c1593cfdd7b4da8e0c39e97942e8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> >From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzi...@redhat.com> >> >Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:44:48 +0100 >> >Subject: [PATCH] ldap_test.py: Modify enum cache timeouts >> > >> >There is a race condation between ldap >> >enumeration refresh timeout and the sleeps >> >that wait for the ldap changes to populate >> >to SSSD if the timeout and the sleeps have >> >the same value. >> >--- >> > src/tests/intg/ldap_test.py | 30 +++++++++++++++++------------- >> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> > >> >diff --git a/src/tests/intg/ldap_test.py b/src/tests/intg/ldap_test.py >> >index 757ee20..8ec8dbe 100644 >> >--- a/src/tests/intg/ldap_test.py >> >+++ b/src/tests/intg/ldap_test.py >> >@@ -33,7 +33,11 @@ import ldap_ent >> > from util import * >> > >> > LDAP_BASE_DN = "dc=example,dc=com" >> >-INTERACTIVE_TIMEOUT = 4 >> >+INTERACTIVE_TIMEOUT = 2 >> >+ >> >+ >> >+def wait_for_ldap_enum_refresh(): >> >+ time.sleep(INTERACTIVE_TIMEOUT + 4) >> Why does it need to be INTERACTIVE_TIMEOUT + 4 >> >> Could it be INTERACTIVE_TIMEOUT + 3 or + 5 >> > >Regardless of the value we choose, can we move this patch forward? I see >the related failure quite often in SSSD. Adding timeout without real explanation is not a solution.
The main problem is with empiric values. If they are very high then test are slow. And there still can be slow/fast machine where lower values caused troubles. The ideal solution would be to get rid of enumeration in ldap tests. If we want to test enumeration than it should be in separate test. I'm not sure we would be able to get rid of "sleep()" in enumeration test but all such values should pre properly documented why it is big enough ... LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
