test: fix `http-upgrade-agent` flakiness #4520

santigimeno · 2016-01-03T17:56:21Z

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk
as the upgrade response. Listen for the data event to make sure all
the data is received. Modify the test so it does not pass without
applying this change.

I was getting this error from time to time on OS X:

assert.js:89
  throw new assert.AssertionError({
  ^
AssertionError: <Buffer > == 'nurtzo'
    at ClientRequest.<anonymous> (/Users/sgimeno/node/node/test/parallel/test-http-upgrade-agent.js:51:12)
    at emitThree (events.js:98:13)
    at ClientRequest.emit (events.js:176:7)
    at Socket.socketOnData (_http_client.js:342:11)
    at emitOne (events.js:78:13)
    at Socket.emit (events.js:170:7)
    at readableAddChunk (_stream_readable.js:146:16)
    at Socket.Readable.push (_stream_readable.js:110:10)
    at TCP.onread (net.js:523:20)

Trott · 2016-01-03T19:53:32Z

Modify the test so it does not pass without applying this change.

This PR only has a change to the test. Is this sentence in error or is there a missing modified file that needs to be added?

santigimeno · 2016-01-07T07:02:14Z

Yes, that sentence was wrong. I rewrote the commit message. PTAL

Trott · 2016-01-08T04:23:05Z

The changes to the upgrade event handler looks good to me. I don't think we need the setTimeout() in the test setup. If you do want to force the data in two writes like that, maybe put it in a different test so we have one test that's straightforward and another test that's specific to the data definitely always arriving in two pieces?

santigimeno · 2016-01-08T21:57:48Z

@Trott PR updated with your comments. Thanks

Trott · 2016-01-09T03:41:40Z

LGTM if CI is happy.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/1664/

We need to get you onboarded so you can start these CI jobs yourself!

Minor nit that can be ignored if you want: I don't think we need the gotData variable and check in the new test since we're guaranteeing the check of the value of recvData which can't possibly be set correctly unless gotData is true. But it doesn't hurt anything either, I guess.

Trott · 2016-01-09T07:05:04Z

One other comment that you can ignore if you want: The same issue you're fixing here seems to afflict test-http-upgrade-client.js as well. Maybe fix that too, either here or in a separate PR? (I'm a fan of separate PR, but either way.)

santigimeno · 2016-01-09T11:26:39Z

@Trott I've removed the gotData variable.
I'll fix the other test in a separate PR

Trott · 2016-01-09T22:23:32Z

Looks like the modified test fails (or is flaky?) on FreeBSD and Raspberry Pi:

santigimeno · 2016-01-09T23:16:04Z

@Trott It seems the CI was started with the previous version of the PR: 8ac8915 (the one with gotData) and not the current one: santigimeno@d710d9c. Anyway, it's been helpful as it has shown that in those environments all the upgrade data was sent in only 1 chunk. I'll increase the timeout a little bit and maybe bring back the gotData variable as it has proven to be useful. What do you think?

santigimeno · 2016-01-09T23:28:56Z

Nah, increasing the timeout won't work either as the client is closing the connection when it receives the upgrade request. I think I'm removing the test altogether as it may happen that the second write could fail due to a race condition with the client closing the connection.

santigimeno · 2016-01-09T23:31:09Z

PR updated. I think this should work

Trott · 2016-01-10T02:49:11Z

One nit, but LGTM if CI doesn't uncover anything.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/1180/

Trott · 2016-01-10T02:51:35Z

test/parallel/test-http-upgrade-agent.js

+      recvData += d;
+    });
+
+    socket.on('close', function() {


Nit: As mscdex noted in the other PR that's similar to this, this callback might benefit from being wrapped in common.mustCall() to guarantee that it fires.

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk as the upgrade response. Listen for the `data` event to make sure all the data is received.

santigimeno · 2016-01-11T20:34:53Z

PR updated. Thanks

Trott · 2016-01-11T23:07:00Z

LGTM.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/1200/

jasnell · 2016-01-12T20:13:54Z

LGTM

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk as the upgrade response. Listen for the `data` event to make sure all the data is received. PR-URL: #4520 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>

jasnell · 2016-01-12T20:14:49Z

Landed in 6018fa1

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk as the upgrade response. Listen for the `data` event to make sure all the data is received. PR-URL: #4520 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk as the upgrade response. Listen for the `data` event to make sure all the data is received. PR-URL: nodejs#4520 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>

brendanashworth added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Jan 4, 2016

mscdex added the http Issues or PRs related to the http subsystem. label Jan 4, 2016

jasnell added the lts-watch-v4.x label Jan 4, 2016

santigimeno force-pushed the test-http-upgrade-agent branch from 8b6e674 to c595680 Compare January 7, 2016 06:47

santigimeno force-pushed the test-http-upgrade-agent branch from c595680 to 8ac8915 Compare January 8, 2016 21:56

santigimeno force-pushed the test-http-upgrade-agent branch from 8ac8915 to d710d9c Compare January 9, 2016 11:20

santigimeno force-pushed the test-http-upgrade-agent branch from d710d9c to 2368c95 Compare January 9, 2016 23:30

Trott reviewed Jan 10, 2016
View reviewed changes

test: fix http-upgrade-agent flakiness

6e84dda

It's not guaranteed that the socket data is received in the same chunk as the upgrade response. Listen for the `data` event to make sure all the data is received.

santigimeno force-pushed the test-http-upgrade-agent branch from 2368c95 to 6e84dda Compare January 11, 2016 20:21

jasnell closed this Jan 12, 2016

evanlucas mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2016

v5.5.0 Release Proposal (Stable) #4742

Merged

MylesBorins added land-on-v4.x and removed lts-watch-v4.x labels Jan 28, 2016

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2016

V4.3.1 proposal #5200

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

test: fix `http-upgrade-agent` flakiness #4520

test: fix `http-upgrade-agent` flakiness #4520

santigimeno commented Jan 3, 2016

Trott commented Jan 3, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 7, 2016

Trott commented Jan 8, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 8, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 10, 2016

Trott Jan 10, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 11, 2016

Trott commented Jan 11, 2016

jasnell commented Jan 12, 2016

jasnell commented Jan 12, 2016

test: fix http-upgrade-agent flakiness #4520

test: fix http-upgrade-agent flakiness #4520

Conversation

santigimeno commented Jan 3, 2016

Trott commented Jan 3, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 7, 2016

Trott commented Jan 8, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 8, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

santigimeno commented Jan 9, 2016

Trott commented Jan 10, 2016

Trott Jan 10, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santigimeno commented Jan 11, 2016

Trott commented Jan 11, 2016

jasnell commented Jan 12, 2016

jasnell commented Jan 12, 2016

test: fix `http-upgrade-agent` flakiness #4520

test: fix `http-upgrade-agent` flakiness #4520