Skip to content

test: run faster and cleanup after run#8848

Closed
geek wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
geek:fix-tick-tests
Closed

test: run faster and cleanup after run#8848
geek wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
geek:fix-tick-tests

Conversation

@geek

@geek geek commented Sep 29, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Checklist
  • make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

test

Description of change

Fixes #8725

tick tests now run faster and cleanup spawned processes. Previously, when executed continuously the tick tests would leave spawned processes after the test completed.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Sep 29, 2016
@mscdex mscdex added the process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. label Sep 29, 2016
@Trott

Trott commented Sep 30, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/cc @indutny @matthewloring

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@imyller imyller left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@matthewloring matthewloring left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@Trott

Trott commented Sep 30, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

CI again now that a few issues in CI have been cleaned up:https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/5392/

@indutny indutny left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with cleaning it up on exit, but I don't see huge benefit from using asynchronous functions here. Is there much point in it?

@Trott

Trott commented Sep 30, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

(CI is yellow. First time in a long time. Green can't be too far behind, can it? CAN IT?!?!)

@Trott

Trott commented Oct 3, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ping @geek Any response to this from @indutny?:

I don't see huge benefit from using asynchronous functions here. Is there much point in it?

These test failures have been a long-standing significant problem and I'd really love to get that question resolved so we can land this. Let me know if you'd like me to do anything.

EDIT: Oh, these are test improvements but they don't solve the regular test failures. My mistake.

@geek

geek commented Oct 3, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@indutny if you think moving back to sync is better, I can try that... I do think this is easy enough to reason about as it is written. Do you want this to be sync?

@jbergstroem

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

New CI here: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/5440/

If this PR intends to fix #8725 we should put a log in the fire. That bug has been coloring our test environment red for a while..

@geek

geek commented Oct 4, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@indutny reverted to sync style. The tests are still faster and more reliable!

@indutny

indutny commented Oct 4, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Looks much better now, thank you! Few questions:

  • What particular change yielded the major speed up?
  • Are the other changes necessary to maintain that speed up? Or if put in other words, do they bring any running time improvement?

@geek

geek commented Oct 4, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@indutny first, cleaning up the child processes... I noticed that they would often remain after the tests all ran. After this cleanup, the time between retrying to read the ticks and find the expected value was reduced, which is really where the speedup came from.

I will go through the remaining tests and see if I can find similar issues.

@Trott

Trott commented Oct 4, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Curious if this helps flakiness on the Raspberry Pi devices.

Stress test on current master: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/976/nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/console

Stress test on this PR: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/977/nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/console

@Trott

Trott commented Oct 4, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@geek

geek commented Oct 5, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@indutny do you approve the PR?

@geek

geek commented Oct 6, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

All tests are green, I reran linux-ppc and it passed: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-plinux/4619/

@indutny after you approve the PR it will be ready for merge.

@jasnell jasnell left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@indutny

indutny commented Oct 6, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Approved! LGTM. Thank you

@jasnell jasnell self-assigned this Oct 6, 2016
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2016
PR-URL: #8848
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matthew Loring <mattloring@google.com>
Reviewed-By: Ilkka Myller <ilkka.myller@nodefield.com>
@jasnell

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Landed in b88612d. Thank you!

@jasnell jasnell closed this Oct 6, 2016
@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

lts?

@jasnell

jasnell commented Oct 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Possibly. @indutny what do you think about pulling this back to v4?

@indutny

indutny commented Oct 8, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm fine with backporting it

jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2016
PR-URL: #8848
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matthew Loring <mattloring@google.com>
Reviewed-By: Ilkka Myller <ilkka.myller@nodefield.com>
Fishrock123 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2016
PR-URL: #8848
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matthew Loring <mattloring@google.com>
Reviewed-By: Ilkka Myller <ilkka.myller@nodefield.com>
@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bah... the test doesn't exist in v4.x... changing to do not land

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants