-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
Fix flaky sequential/test-domain-abort-on-uncaught and move back to parallel #11826
Comments
Hi @gibfahn I would like to fix this issue, I have already done a PR. But it seems the file |
@clarenced yes, #11817 hasn't landed yet (and probably shouldn't if you've already raised a PR). So you can fix the test and leave it in parallel. EDIT: Let me know the number when you raise it. cc/ @Trott |
I plan on landing #11817 in another 18 hours or so. |
@clarenced #11817 has landed, which will mean that your branch will need to be rebased on master. |
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel Fixes: nodejs#11826
Proposed fix in #14541 |
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel PR-URL: #14541 Fixes: #11826 Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel PR-URL: #14541 Fixes: #11826 Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel PR-URL: #14541 Fixes: #11826 Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel PR-URL: #14541 Fixes: #11826 Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
* use common.mustCall() instead of exit handler * use execSync instead of exec so test is reliable under load * move from sequential to parallel PR-URL: #14541 Fixes: #11826 Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
See #11814 (comment)
How to fix
test/parallel/
(it's currently intest/sequential/
).If you want to have a go at this comment on this issue to let us know. If you have any questions ask them here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: