Safe boot emu's 2 #2035
Closed
Safe boot emu's 2 #2035
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2124
💛 - Coveralls |
d4vidi
force-pushed
the
safe-boot-emus2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
233f500
to
9215d21
Compare
|
Was closed for the same reason as its predecessor: adb jam problem ensues in a more frequent way. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description:
A rephrase of the work in #2011: trying to fix #2106 in a more deterministic and thorough way. Introduces 2 fundamental changes:
Forced sequential launch of emulators (i.e. await launch if a launch is in session).
Implemented by including the emulator spawn in the lock-file scoped handler function (i.e. don't unlock until emu starts loading).
Post-launch delay (todo)
Avoid moving forward to ADB commands until all emulators have completed spawning.
This addresses the now well-know adb-jam problem (see #1857), which - following #2011, I suspect reproduces when an emulator launches while an adb command is in-flight. In a way, this half-baked change sets out to test that theory.