CI: system tests: make random_free_port() parallel-safe #23595
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
release-note-none
approved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to free some ports at some point or start increasing the port range we use. Because with how many ports pasta test allocate we might block a lot of ports which means finding a random free one in the range might take a while, espcailly if we have to find a free port range not just a single one.
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
parallel-safe-random-free-port
branch
from
476a47e to
86ddd10
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, Luap99 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 |
|
Seem to be working in my parallel PR. I need to fix the |
...by using a crude port lock-and-reserve mechanism. This is a small cherrypick from code that has been working in containers#23275 over dozens of CI runs. Am separating out into a small PR because it's stable, harmless to serial runs, and will simplify the eventual review of containers#23275. Closes: containers#23488 Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
parallel-safe-random-free-port
branch
from
86ddd10 to
420bd16
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/lgtm |
stale-locking-app
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
...by using a crude port lock-and-reserve mechanism. This is
a small cherrypick from code that has been working in #23275
over dozens of CI runs. Am separating out into a small PR
because it's stable, harmless to serial runs, and will
simplify the eventual review of #23275.
Closes: #23488
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago [email protected]