ci: fix TestNomad_BootstrapExpect_NonVoter test #14407
Merged
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
PR #12130 refactored the test to use the `wantPeers` helper, but this function only returns the number of voting peers, which in this test should be equal to 2. I think the tests were passing back them because of a bug in Raft (hashicorp/raft#483) where a non-voting server was able to transition to candidate state. One possible evidence of this is that a successful test run would have the following log line: ``` [email protected]/raft.go:1058: nomad.raft: updating configuration: command=AddVoter server-id=127.0.0.1:9101 server-addr=127.0.0.1:9101 servers="[{Suffrage:Voter ID:127.0.0.1:9107 Address:127.0.0.1:9107} {Suffrage:Voter ID:127.0.0.1:9105 Address:127.0.0.1:9105} {Suffrage:Voter ID:127.0.0.1:9103 Address:127.0.0.1:9103} {Suffrage:Voter ID:127.0.0.1:9101 Address:127.0.0.1:9101}]" ``` This commit reverts the test logic to check for peer count, regardless of voting status.
tgross
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2022
nomad/serf_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -327,16 +326,35 @@ func TestNomad_BootstrapExpect_NonVoter(t *testing.T) { | |||
| }) | |||
| defer cleanupS4() | |||
|
|
|||
| servers := []*Server{s1, s2, s3, s4} | |||
|
|
|||
| // Join with fourth server (now have quorum) | |||
| // Start with 4th server for higher chance of success | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line of the comment is no longer relevant I think?
Suggested change
| // Start with 4th server for higher chance of success |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I didn't notice that the order was important. I pushed a commit to store the server in reverse order and moved this comment 👍
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 120 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
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.
PR #12130 refactored the test to use the
wantPeershelper, but thisfunction only returns the number of voting peers, which in this test
should be equal to 2.
I think the tests were passing back them because of a bug in Raft
(hashicorp/raft#483) where a non-voting server
was able to transition to candidate state.
One possible evidence of this is that a successful test run would have
the following log line:
This commit reverts the test logic to check for peer count, regardless
of voting status.
I ran it a few times in CI and there were no failures in this test anymore.