Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tests(smoke): attempt to fix cls-elements flake #11426

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 20, 2020
Merged

Conversation

paulirish
Copy link
Member

@connorjclark reported a flake about layout-shift-elements..

the test page actually has 1 shifted element.. however in #10877 @patrickhulce tweaked the page to try add so many dom nodes that the originally shifted element is no longer identifiable.. presumably evicted from the backend node cache.

the flake result that connor got suggested the node was still found on his machine. So my attempted fix is just to create MOAR NODES. 🤷

i've personally never seen this flake on my two machines, so @connorjclark you'll have to try this out.

ref the smoke flakes issue #11341

@paulirish paulirish requested a review from a team as a code owner September 12, 2020 23:16
@paulirish paulirish requested review from Beytoven and removed request for a team September 12, 2020 23:16
@@ -286,8 +286,8 @@ module.exports = [
},
{
lhr: {
requestedUrl: 'http://localhost:10200/perf/trace-elements.html?missing',
Copy link
Collaborator

@connorjclark connorjclark Sep 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This URL change doesn't seem necessary, or better?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the test is all about DOM elements that are no longer in the DOM ("removed") and also that are not available to the protocol due to being evicted from some DOM node cache.

even if all this test was looking at was the first part, i'd still be lobbying for a rename from "missing" to "removed" as that's the more typical term.
but since this situation is more about REMOVED+EVICTED (which is why we're doing the rerenders) i'd like to be using the most clear term.

you can also see where i edited Patrick's PR description for more context.
#10877

(background: i was trying to understand the point of this test. i saw "missing" and concluded it was all about DOM elements just being removed from the DOM. that led to a buncha confusion)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants