-
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
test: fix flaky test-http2-server-rst-stream.js #16690
test: fix flaky test-http2-server-rst-stream.js #16690
Conversation
Stress test for this PR: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/1517/ |
Also, this is currently marked as flaky in https://github.com/nodejs/node-chakracore — see https://github.com/nodejs/node-chakracore/blob/eaf6763c1a35b75c4843b96ee818d3a1c8acb3b4/test/parallel/parallel.status |
Definitely still flaking out. |
It's a lot less flaky now but yeah. I have another version that does |
I suspect that it's just a problem with the test logic itself. I'll play around with it a bit also |
That's what I thought but I'm not sure after changing it up. I feel like there might be a race condition in the http2 code itself that leads to a stream destruction before Maybe there's a goaway that gets processed first or something similar. Edit: But that doesn't make much sense either... |
I don't believe so... I think the logic in the test is just too overcomplicated.... try something like this: 'use strict';
const common = require('../common');
if (!common.hasCrypto)
common.skip('missing crypto');
const assert = require('assert');
const http2 = require('http2');
const Countdown = require('../common/countdown');
const {
HTTP2_HEADER_METHOD,
HTTP2_HEADER_PATH,
HTTP2_METHOD_POST,
NGHTTP2_CANCEL,
NGHTTP2_NO_ERROR,
NGHTTP2_PROTOCOL_ERROR,
NGHTTP2_REFUSED_STREAM,
NGHTTP2_INTERNAL_ERROR
} = http2.constants;
const tests = [
['rstStream', NGHTTP2_NO_ERROR, false],
['rstWithNoError', NGHTTP2_NO_ERROR, false],
['rstWithProtocolError', NGHTTP2_PROTOCOL_ERROR, true],
['rstWithCancel', NGHTTP2_CANCEL, false],
['rstWithRefuse', NGHTTP2_REFUSED_STREAM, true],
['rstWithInternalError', NGHTTP2_INTERNAL_ERROR, true]
];
const server = http2.createServer();
server.on('stream', (stream, headers) => {
const method = headers['rstmethod'];
stream[method]();
});
server.listen(0, common.mustCall(() => {
const client = http2.connect(`http://localhost:${server.address().port}`);
const countdown = new Countdown(tests.length, common.mustCall(() => {
client.destroy();
server.close();
}));
tests.forEach((i) => {
const req = client.request({
':method': 'POST',
rstmethod: i[0]
});
req.on('streamClosed', common.mustCall((code) => {
assert.strictEqual(code, i[1]);
countdown.dec();
}));
req.on('aborted', common.mustCall());
if (i[2]) req.on('error', common.mustCall());
});
})); |
That needs a bit of linting :-) |
So are we assuming that the problem with the previous version was related to the unique connections for each test run (presumably it didn't always connect and went straight to destroy, hence |
I think the issue was the way the expected rstCode was being set in the test and a race condition in the streams. (a race condition in the test, that is, not in the implementation) |
@jasnell hmmm... but the next test would only run once the Also in both tests the failure was always with rstCode 0 and not any other. One would expect different rstCodes to be mixed in there if it was as a result of race conditions. Sorry to keep digging into this, I just want to make sure we're clear on the exact issue we're addressing so that we're not potentially overlooking something. |
Stress test looks good so far, seems a good bet that it'll succeed. |
Makes me think I should go through the rest of the tests and check for others that are trying to There's also at least one other test that's flaky on node-chakracore. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Assuming the stress test comes back good, LGTM.
And +1 for fast tracking so we can get CI fixed. This has a pretty high failure rate.
bd9c52c
to
bfbe413
Compare
Just tidied up a little bit and squashed everything. Here's the full CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/11157/ |
CI looks good on this one. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
PR-URL: #16690 Fixes: #16688 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Landed in 3a977fc |
PR-URL: nodejs#16690 Fixes: nodejs#16688 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #16690 Fixes: #16688 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
I believe this test has some problems with concurrency but not 100% certain yet. Previous version was failing when I ran a heavy duty stress test on my machine but it's also possible there's something wrong in the http2 code. (Will run stress test CIs to try & confirm.)
Please don't approve until stress tests are done. I'm not even sure myself if this is correct. 😆
Fixes: #16688
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
test