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

coverage: adjust threshold on source/server to fix flaky failure #15238

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 1, 2021

Conversation

mathetake
Copy link
Member

@mathetake mathetake commented Mar 1, 2021

The coverage on source/server recently has been flaky between 94.4 and 95.1. What's worse is
this is somehow deterministic, i.e. on some commits, retesting would not work to go green.

I have encountered this several times in a last few weeks, for example, #15210 this is clearly unrelated to this coverage issue. You can see the same flake is happening to other PRs.

I see that the root cause sits in source/server/connection_handler_impl.cc, but I would like to introduce this change as a temporary workaround.

Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yoneda [email protected]

The coverage recently has been flaky between 94.4 and 95.1. What's worse is
this is somehow deterministic, i.e. on some pull requests, retesting would not work to go green.

Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yoneda <[email protected]>
@phlax
Copy link
Member

phlax commented Mar 1, 2021

+1 #15117

Copy link
Contributor

@jmarantz jmarantz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM: I think it's something we need to fix but the flakiness of this coverage issue should not be a tax on all unrelated PRs.

But can you add an Issue describing what you've learned about the flake, and reference it here from this comment, so we are not tempted to "tighten" the coverage requirements again and re-introduce flakes?

@jmarantz jmarantz self-assigned this Mar 1, 2021
@mathetake
Copy link
Member Author

But can you add an Issue describing what you've learned about the flake, and reference it here from this comment, so we are not tempted to "tighten" the coverage requirements again and re-introduce flakes?

Agreed. I'm on it.

@mathetake
Copy link
Member Author

#15239 created the tracker.

Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yoneda <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@alyssawilk alyssawilk 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 the fix + issue and sorry for the noise

@alyssawilk alyssawilk merged commit d4a77e1 into envoyproxy:main Mar 1, 2021
@mathetake mathetake deleted the server-covrage branch March 1, 2021 23:59
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants