Skip to content

test: fix flaky ITTransactionRetryTest #342

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 14, 2020
Merged

test: fix flaky ITTransactionRetryTest #342

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 14, 2020

Conversation

@olavloite
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #341

@olavloite olavloite requested a review from skuruppu July 10, 2020 19:22
@thiagotnunes thiagotnunes self-requested a review July 13, 2020 23:49
thiagotnunes
thiagotnunes approved these changes Jul 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@thiagotnunes thiagotnunes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for fixing this! I just experienced this flaky one on my builds.
Could you elaborate on why this would sometimes fail?

@olavloite
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for fixing this! I just experienced this flaky one on my builds.
Could you elaborate on why this would sometimes fail?

The test failed because it wrongly assumed that Cloud Spanner would never itself abort the read/write transaction. The test itself simulates that the transaction was aborted three times through the calls to AbortInterceptor.setProbability(1.0). In addition, the test case did take into consideration that a retry attempt itself could abort. These are counted in the statistic totalNestedAborts, but it did not take into account that Cloud Spanner itself could abort the initial transaction any number of times. If for example the query at line 351 would return an Aborted error, the test case would fail as that would not be counted as a nested abort, but it would be counted as a successful retry.

@olavloite
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@skuruppu Do you have any idea why the cla/google check has started to get stuck lately? I've seen it on a couple of different PRs in the past week.

@skuruppu
Copy link
Contributor

That is a good question @olavloite. I've noticed that too but haven't figure out why. I've been toggling the bit and then the bot comes in and fixes it. I can ask around in the chat to see if other teams are experiencing it too.

@skuruppu skuruppu added cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. and removed cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. labels Jul 14, 2020
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. label Jul 14, 2020
@skuruppu skuruppu merged commit f89cd04 into master Jul 14, 2020
@skuruppu skuruppu deleted the flaky-tx-retry-test branch July 14, 2020 11:15
ansh0l pushed a commit to ansh0l/java-spanner that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2022
@yoshi-automation
auto-regenerate .pb.go files (googleapis#342)
baae70f 
This is an auto-generated regeneration of the .pb.go files by
cloud.google.com/go/internal/gapicgen. Once this PR is submitted, genmgr will
update the corresponding CL at gocloud to depend on the newer version of
go-genproto, and assign reviewers. Whilst this or any regen PR is open in
go-genproto, gapicgen will not create any more regeneration PRs or CLs. If all
regen PRs are closed, gapicgen will create a new set of regeneration PRs and
CLs once per night.

If you have been assigned to review this CL, please:

- Ensure that CI is passing. If it's failing, it requires your manual attention.
- Approve and submit this PR if you believe it's ready to ship. That will prompt
  genmgr to assign reviewers to the gocloud CL.

Corresponding gocloud CL: https://code-review.googlesource.com/c/gocloud/+/54531
rajatbhatta pushed a commit to rajatbhatta/java-spanner that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2022
@olavloite
docs: fix javadoc formatting (googleapis#343)
2ac1964 
* docs: fix javadoc formatting

One of the descriptions of the supported connection properties missed an ending
</code> block, which caused the entire formatting to be incorrect.

Fixes googleapis#342

* fix: 'will be' => 'is'
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@thiagotnunes thiagotnunes thiagotnunes approved these changes

@skuruppu skuruppu Awaiting requested review from skuruppu

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ITTransactionRetryTest can be flaky

5 participants

@olavloite @skuruppu @thiagotnunes @googlebot