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
eni: Fix node manager test #11773
eni: Fix node manager test #11773
Conversation
The test was failing due resulting values being greater then expected, however it is evident that `minAllocate` is a minimum value and should be treated as such. Fixes: #11560 Signed-off-by: Ilya Dmitrichenko <errordeveloper@gmail.com>
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
2 similar comments
Please set the appropriate release note label. |
Please set the appropriate release note label. |
Having fixed the first issues, I am still seeing it fail on something else:
But I cannot really tell what's going on, maybe the tests ends up looking at the wrong actual node or something like that? Or perhaps another assertion is missing at an earlier stage? I know virtually nothing about this code, but I'd say I do understand the domain of ENI IPAM. |
On another several attempts, different values, this time higher then expected:
It looks like this is not random. Looks like 20 relates to this:
However, 54 doesn't seem to relate to anything and that's what I'm seeing most often. |
I think we should remove that this PR fixes the issue because the underlying cause doesn't seem to be fixed. From my previous investigation, I noticed that when a failure occurs, there's always a message like:
which is coming from here: Line 487 in 5e5c626
and also from here: Line 363 in 5e5c626
I think the cause of these failures is that the some Stats fields are zeroed out:
when the condition that causes the log message to occur is hit. I can't seem to put a finger on why it happens, as most runs it works just fine. I think there's some more raciness going on with the async triggers / reconciliation code. |
On second thought, if the new failure you mentioned @errordeveloper is occurring less often, then we could merge this fix and continue investigating. |
@christarazi yes, I thin there is some sort of raciness for sure! |
Great, merging and will keep a note on the original issue that it may come back. |
The test was failing due resulting values being greater then expected,
however it is evident that
minAllocate
is a minimum value and shouldbe treated as such.
Fixed #11560.