-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
sig-proxy test: bump timeout #16287
sig-proxy test: bump timeout #16287
Conversation
Bump the timeout waiting for the container to process the signal. The comparatively short timeout is most likely responsible for flakes in gating tests. Fixes: containers#16091 Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vrothberg The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
I don't think of five seconds as a "short timeout" for handling a signal... but, shrug, LGTM if there's no other option. |
@edsantiago wasn't it 2.5 seconds of timeout before and now we're at 5? Some other timeouts are at 10. |
Ugh, good point: The thing that bothers me is that this is a new test dating to Sept 20 (#15131). And it relies on |
/lgtm |
/hold cancel |
Thanks for keeping an eye on these flakes! Bumping timeouts never gives me a satisfying feeling (or accomplishment) but that is the best "guess" I have for this flake. |
/cherrypick v4.3 |
@lsm5: new pull request created: #16516 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Bump the timeout waiting for the container to process the signal. The comparatively short timeout is most likely responsible for flakes in gating tests.
Fixes: #16091
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg [email protected]
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?