-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 388
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
TestLabelsDemoApp failures (flake?) #1954
Comments
More typical timeout example. I think one solution would be to move away from these deployments that are flaky "by nature": they somehow fail to deploy on time even in an environment with enough resources. We have been talking in the past about moving away from those and maybe use https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/microservices-demo, especially since now Tetragon is independent of Cilium for those tests. |
Let's make a good first issue to do the migration to the microservices demo. I think it makes a lot of sense. |
See #1976. |
This might be fixed by #2345. Let's keep an eye on Tetragon e2e tests for a couple of weeks, if it's stable then we can close the issue. UPDATE: It seems the test is still flaky after switching to otel-demo app. It failed in #2417: https://github.com/cilium/tetragon/actions/runs/8966724879/attempts/1 |
Hi @lambdanis
The test seems successful, but the demo has failed to install. Maybe this is another flake test? Btw, I'm wondering why we have to install and check labels in parallel instead of installing the demo app successfully and then running the label checker test? tetragon/tests/e2e/tests/labels/labels_test.go Lines 97 to 121 in a3b867c
|
I'm not sure indeed. The only reason can be that it can potentially speed up the tests because technically the checker can finish before all the deployments are ready. If it can make debugging easier, maybe we could consider changing that. Do you have any memories on that @willfindlay? |
Hit a
TestLabelsDemoApp
failure (https://github.com/cilium/tetragon/actions/runs/7472506683/job/20334842561?pr=1948) in #1948. Seems like a flake.Details:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: