Skip to content

[FLINK-17721][filesystems][test] Fix test instability for AbstractHadoopFileSystemITTest.#12308

Closed
xintongsong wants to merge 3 commits into
apache:masterfrom
xintongsong:FLINK-17721-fs-test
Closed

[FLINK-17721][filesystems][test] Fix test instability for AbstractHadoopFileSystemITTest.#12308
xintongsong wants to merge 3 commits into
apache:masterfrom
xintongsong:FLINK-17721-fs-test

Conversation

@xintongsong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

This PR fixes test instability for AbstractHadoopFileSystemITTest. The problem was that a timeout for checking file status is shared by all test cases and may fail if previous test executions take too long.

Brief change log

Set independent timeout for each file status checking.

Verifying this change

This PR is a fix for existing test cases.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

Per the JavaDoc of System.nanoTime(), we should use `t1 - t0 < 0` rather than `t1 < t0` because of the possibility of numerical overflow.
@flinkbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

flinkbot commented May 25, 2020

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit dd21b02 (Fri Oct 16 10:54:34 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details
The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

flinkbot commented May 25, 2020

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@aljoscha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The changes look good! But maybe 5 seconds of deadline is not enough?

@xintongsong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@aljoscha What value do you suggest? Maybe change it back to 30s?

@xintongsong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I've increased it to 30s.

@aljoscha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ok, I think that's good to merge then! I'll merge.

@aljoscha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for the PR!

@aljoscha aljoscha closed this May 25, 2020
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.

4 participants