Skip to content

coverage: revert workarounds that are no longer neccessary#10837

Merged
mattklein123 merged 4 commits intoenvoyproxy:masterfrom
ggreenway:coverage-cleanup
Apr 21, 2020
Merged

coverage: revert workarounds that are no longer neccessary#10837
mattklein123 merged 4 commits intoenvoyproxy:masterfrom
ggreenway:coverage-cleanup

Conversation

@ggreenway
Copy link
Member

@ggreenway ggreenway commented Apr 18, 2020

Description: Turn off 'Flaky' for coverage tests.
Risk Level: Low

Signed-off-by: Greg Greenway ggreenway@apple.com

Fixes envoyproxy#10108

Signed-off-by: Greg Greenway <ggreenway@apple.com>
@lizan
Copy link
Member

lizan commented Apr 18, 2020

@ggreenway coverage test is not always to fail, it depends how gtest shard tests into 50 runs, i.e. adding/removing test change the sharding. At some point it will break. It is always better to shuffle test order to detect flakiness / unintended dependencies between tests.

@ggreenway
Copy link
Member Author

Hmm. What I was trying to fight is inconsistent coverage results between runs. Are we better off closing this so the tests don’t get stuck in a broken state?

@mattklein123
Copy link
Member

Can we potentially keep the shuffle but remove the flaky tag so it runs once? We have fixed a bunch of things and also have stack traces now so it should be easier to understand what happens if it fails during the flake run?

@ggreenway
Copy link
Member Author

Sounds reasonable to me. @lizan wdyt?

@lizan
Copy link
Member

lizan commented Apr 20, 2020

SGTM

lizan
lizan previously approved these changes Apr 20, 2020
@mattklein123
Copy link
Member

The irony: coverage failed. Sigh. Maybe we shouldn't shuffle and just deal with whatever issues show up?

@ggreenway
Copy link
Member Author

I'm confused. For that coverage run, there were no failures, but it says coverage was only 96.5%. The SHUFFLE shouldn't affect the overall coverage, just whether it passes/fails, right?

@mattklein123
Copy link
Member

I'm confused. For that coverage run, there were no failures, but it says coverage was only 96.5%. The SHUFFLE shouldn't affect the overall coverage, just whether it passes/fails, right?

I'm actually not sure this is the case. I could see the order mattering in terms of the calculations, especially wrt to death tests and other strange things.

@ggreenway
Copy link
Member Author

I'm fine with removing the SHUFFLE and seeing how it goes from there.

This reverts commit 315f274.

Signed-off-by: Greg Greenway <ggreenway@apple.com>
@mattklein123 mattklein123 merged commit 1cb955f into envoyproxy:master Apr 21, 2020
penguingao pushed a commit to penguingao/envoy that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2020
…y#10837)

Signed-off-by: Greg Greenway <ggreenway@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: pengg <pengg@google.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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants