Skip to content
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

Flaky test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy #256

Closed
sunjayBhatia opened this issue May 25, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #258
Closed

Flaky test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy #256

sunjayBhatia opened this issue May 25, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #258

Comments

@sunjayBhatia
Copy link
Member

sunjayBhatia commented May 25, 2021

Failing in CI but passes when I run locally

See runs:

--- FAIL: TestServiceLegacy (0.00s)
    ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: 
        	Error Trace:	ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157
        	Error:      	Not equal: 
        	            	expected: int(1)
        	            	actual  : uint64(0x0)
        	Test:       	TestServiceLegacy
time="2021-05-25T17:35:39Z" level=error msg="error loading new configuration from runtime: load error"
time="2021-05-25T17:35:39Z" level=error msg="error loading new configuration from runtime: load error"
time="2021-05-25T17:35:39Z" level=error msg="error loading new configuration from runtime: load error"
time="2021-05-25T17:35:39Z" level=error msg="error loading new configuration from runtime: load error"
FAIL
FAIL	github.com/envoyproxy/ratelimit/test/service	0.067s
FAIL

Test:

t.assert.EqualValues(1, t.statStore.NewCounter("config_load_error").Value())

@sunjayBhatia sunjayBhatia changed the title Flaky test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy Failing test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy May 25, 2021
@sunjayBhatia sunjayBhatia changed the title Failing test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy Flaky test: ratelimit_legacy_test.go:157: TestServiceLegacy May 25, 2021
sunjayBhatia added a commit to sunjayBhatia/ratelimit that referenced this issue May 25, 2021
User deferred barrier.signal() so panic definitely occurs before
we continue on in test.

Config reload uses recover() and increments config load counter, tests
were failing to see config load error counter increment.

Fixes: envoyproxy#256

Signed-off-by: Sunjay Bhatia <sunjayb@vmware.com>
mattklein123 pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2021
User deferred barrier.signal() so panic definitely occurs before
we continue on in test.

Config reload uses recover() and increments config load counter, tests
were failing to see config load error counter increment.

Fixes: #256

Signed-off-by: Sunjay Bhatia <sunjayb@vmware.com>
storozhukBM pushed a commit to storozhukBM/ratelimit-1 that referenced this issue May 28, 2021
User deferred barrier.signal() so panic definitely occurs before
we continue on in test.

Config reload uses recover() and increments config load counter, tests
were failing to see config load error counter increment.

Fixes: envoyproxy#256

Signed-off-by: Sunjay Bhatia <sunjayb@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: bstorozhuk <storozhuk.b.m@gmail.com>
zdmytriv pushed a commit to verygoodsecurity/ratelimit that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2021
User deferred barrier.signal() so panic definitely occurs before
we continue on in test.

Config reload uses recover() and increments config load counter, tests
were failing to see config load error counter increment.

Fixes: envoyproxy#256

Signed-off-by: Sunjay Bhatia <sunjayb@vmware.com>
timcovar pushed a commit to goatapp/ratelimit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2024
User deferred barrier.signal() so panic definitely occurs before
we continue on in test.

Config reload uses recover() and increments config load counter, tests
were failing to see config load error counter increment.

Fixes: envoyproxy#256

Signed-off-by: Sunjay Bhatia <sunjayb@vmware.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant