Skip to content

test: optimize waitForNextUpstreamRequest() #11026

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
alyssawilk merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2020
Merged

test: optimize waitForNextUpstreamRequest() #11026

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0c4116f
test: optimize waitForNextUpstreamRequest()
lambdai May 1, 2020
2410899
fix
lambdai May 1, 2020
9b7f521
rephrase
lambdai May 4, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 13 additions & 5 deletions test/integration/http_integration.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -357,16 +357,24 @@ HttpIntegrationTest::waitForNextUpstreamRequest(const std::vector<uint64_t>& ups
absl::optional<uint64_t> upstream_with_request;
// If there is no upstream connection, wait for it to be established.
if (!fake_upstream_connection_) {

AssertionResult result = AssertionFailure();
for (auto upstream_index : upstream_indices) {
result = fake_upstreams_[upstream_index]->waitForHttpConnection(
*dispatcher_, fake_upstream_connection_, connection_wait_timeout, max_request_headers_kb_,
max_request_headers_count_);
int upstream_index = 0;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zuercher zuercher May 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if the test failures are related to the fact that the original only tests upstreams with the given indices, while your version always checks all upstreams? Also, the original is much more likely to return the first member of upstream_indices with a request than the optimized version.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@lambdai lambdai May 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I think you are right. I should iterate over the indexes which is passed. An embarrassing mistake.

Event::TestTimeSystem& time_system = timeSystem();
auto end_time = time_system.monotonicTime() + connection_wait_timeout;
// Loop over the upstreams until the call times out or an upstream request is received.
while (!result) {
upstream_index = upstream_index % upstream_indices.size();
result = fake_upstreams_[upstream_indices[upstream_index]]->waitForHttpConnection(
*dispatcher_, fake_upstream_connection_, std::chrono::milliseconds(5),
max_request_headers_kb_, max_request_headers_count_);
if (result) {
upstream_with_request = upstream_index;
break;
} else if (time_system.monotonicTime() >= end_time) {
result = (AssertionFailure() << "Timed out waiting for new connection.");
break;
}
++upstream_index;
}
RELEASE_ASSERT(result, result.message());
}
Expand Down