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
Gradle 6.2. #111
Gradle 6.2. #111
Conversation
Weird! Test failure that succeeded on ci first time. I guess I wrote a flaky test |
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ class RxSingleStoreTest { | |||
Completable.complete() | |||
} | |||
) | |||
.withScheduler(Schedulers.io()) | |||
.withScheduler(Schedulers.single()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this is a test case, you can also pass Schedulers.trampoline()
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now this is getting more interesting. After changing it to trampoline()
, the test fails consistently:
java.lang.AssertionError: Values at position 1 differ; expected: Data(value=3 2, origin=Fetcher) (class: Data) but was: Data(value=3 2, origin=Persister) (class: Data) (latch = 1, values = 2, errors = 0, completions = 0)
Expected :Data(value=3 2, origin=Fetcher) (class: Data)
Actual :Data(value=3 2, origin=Persister) (class: Data) (latch = 1, values = 2, errors = 0, completions = 0)
Any idea?
I changed the Also it looks like Gradle didn't cause the codecov issue after all... |
Ok that didn't help, reverted as this is a separate issue. |
@ychescale9 I can take a look at it! :D |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #111 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 84.09% 84.09%
Complexity 242 242
=========================================
Files 45 45
Lines 943 943
Branches 151 151
=========================================
Hits 793 793
Misses 95 95
Partials 55 55 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
And now it passed.. and codecov is back. Definitely a flaky test... |
@pavlospt Thanks! Maybe create a separate PR as it's unrelated to this? |
@ychescale9 yeah totally, will create a new one! |
Let's see if this still breaks codecov.