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

Query Engine unit test failures #1962

Closed
otoolep opened this issue Mar 15, 2015 · 8 comments
Closed

Query Engine unit test failures #1962

otoolep opened this issue Mar 15, 2015 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor

otoolep commented Mar 15, 2015

Seeing these occasionally on Travis only. Looks query engine related.

--- FAIL: TestServer_RawDataReturnsInOrder (5.34s)
    server_test.go:1716: unexpected row(0) during COUNT: {"series":[{"name":"cpu","columns":["time","count"],"values":[["1970-01-01T00:00:00Z",421]]}]}
=== RUN TestServer_LimitAndOffset
--- PASS: TestServer_LimitAndOffset (0.69s)
=== RUN TestServer_ExecuteWildcardQuery
--- FAIL: TestServer_ExecuteWildcardQuery (0.46s)
    server_test.go:1816: expected                            {"series":[{"name":"cpu","columns":["time","val-x","value"],"values":[["2000-01-01T00:00:00Z",null,10],["2000-01-01T00:00:10Z",20,null],["2000-01-01T00:00:20Z",40,30]]}]}
    server_test.go:1817: unexpected results during SELECT *: {"series":[{"name":"cpu","columns":["time","val-x","value"],"values":[["2000-01-01T00:00:00Z",null,10],["2000-01-01T00:00:10Z",20,null]]}]}
@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor Author

otoolep commented Mar 15, 2015

@pauldix

@corylanou
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm, that second one should of been fixed with this #1942.

@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor Author

otoolep commented Mar 15, 2015

Unfortunately it does not appear to have been. These test failures are from moments ago.

https://travis-ci.org/influxdb/influxdb/builds/54491855

@corylanou
Copy link
Contributor

Is the failure on master or on a branch?

@corylanou
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, got it to fail finally (put it on a tight loop). This appears to be not a case of sort order, but a case of us out-running the writes with the query.

@corylanou
Copy link
Contributor

@benbjohnson you might want to take a look at this one. Sync is returning true with the index being there, but the data is not queryable yet. Is this a result of the changes to index per topic?

@toddboom
Copy link
Contributor

@corylanou I'm going to assume that it's probably less likely to appear in the wild than in a test. Unless you think it's unwise, I'll cut RC12 without this being fixed.

@corylanou
Copy link
Contributor

I think we are fine to cut the RC. If I understand the issue properly, for this test specifically, we can't trust the "sync" method. Because we are writing two different series, I thin we can have two different topics. Index is not always in order when it is applied, but index per topic is. I think this is a situation where a higher index from a different topic was applied, and the Sync method returns true (stops blocking) and the test continues. We'll likely have to take the same approach in our server tests that we did in our integration tests, which is creating a query and wait/timeout methodology, and that will get rid of these race conditions.

In short, yes, feels like a testing issue, not a bug.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants