test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T15:47:16Z

The usage of common.PORT could cause undesired port collisions when run
in parallel. The following test was moved to sequential.
test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

Ref: #12376

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

test

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T15:51:13Z

I'm not 100% on this one, just because of the necessity for the +1 mechanism, any advice would be appreciated.

lpinca · 2017-05-12T17:08:45Z

test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

@@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ if (cluster.isMaster) {

  socket1.bind({
    address: 'localhost',
-    port: common.PORT,
+    port: 0,


If I'm reading the test correctly this can't be a dynamic port as the same port should be used by the two workers.

lpinca · 2017-05-12T17:11:00Z

I think it's better to move this test in sequential but wait for other feedback.

gibfahn · 2017-05-12T17:19:36Z

This patch does seem to work on my machine, not sure how.

EDIT: That is to say, the test does pass.

lpinca · 2017-05-12T17:24:33Z

@gibfahn yes but I think it is not doing what the test is supposed to do, which is testing the exclusive option.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T18:29:12Z

Got it, I'll await feedback and go from there.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T18:51:46Z

@lpinca I just noticed that this PR is a duplicate. I apologize. #12452

lpinca · 2017-05-12T18:54:17Z

No problem.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T18:55:17Z

In the other PR, is it not landing because it would be preferred to use process.send . I can make that edit if it solves this issue.

lpinca · 2017-05-12T18:58:40Z

#12452 seems ready to go apart from the merge conflicts.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T19:06:53Z

Yeah, it looks like the PR may have gone inactive. I'll wait for a little more info.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T20:48:32Z

@lpinca Ok, so I'm starting to understand the exclusive property better. I understand what you mean by the exclusive property not being utilized. So in my tests second round, it picks a new port and it does not conflict as it should. Is that deduction correct?

lpinca · 2017-05-12T20:50:14Z

Yup.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T20:51:50Z

Ok thank you

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T21:25:11Z

I'm checking and I am getting that it is picking the same port, both times. @lpinca could you confirm?

nestroia1:~/workspace (commonPort08-branch) $ ./node ./test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js
49049
49049

by adding:

}, () => {
    console.log(socket1.address().port); // This
    socket2.bind({ port: socket1.address().port + 1, exclusive: true }, () => {

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T21:26:39Z

I started to reverse the changes in my local branch and debugged first with common.PORT then with an initial dynamic port. Results are similar.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-12T21:30:47Z

Would that behavior scale? I'm not sure, technically speaking. So I will stand by for further review and feedback. It's all the same to me.

lpinca · 2017-05-13T05:53:36Z

@arturgvieira you are right, it seems to pick up the same port also when using 0 and this explains why the test passes with the changes.
socket1.address().port + 1 is still an issue though as discussed in #12452.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-13T06:14:29Z

@lpinca I made some changes. This will get assigned a random port then maintain that port for the collision testing. Let me know what you think. I'm not sure how to remove the + 1 though. I tried and it lost the port collision issue.

lpinca · 2017-05-13T06:23:52Z

test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

-      // the first worker should succeed
+    port = socket1.address().port;
+    socket2.bind({
+      port: port + 1,


There is no guarantee that this port is not being used by another process.

Very true, I am trying to find some way to remove this type of syntax from the test.

lpinca · 2017-05-13T06:24:15Z

test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

  socket1.bind({
    address: 'localhost',
-    port: common.PORT,
+    port: port,


This is still 0 for the second worker.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-13T06:30:27Z

test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

    exclusive: false
  }, () => {
-    socket2.bind({ port: common.PORT + 1, exclusive: true }, () => {
-      // the first worker should succeed
+    port = socket1.address().port;


Please let me know if I am correct to say that the first worker reassigns port1 to the bound port in this line, so the second worker is using that port, not zero.

No, this is not correct, each worker has its own context.

I understand, that is why I am having problems with the port assignments. Thank you

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-13T06:56:00Z

I was able to reduce the usage of common.PORT, is this better?

lpinca · 2017-05-13T07:02:36Z

I still think it's better to just move this test to sequential, no added complexity, no changes.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-13T07:05:07Z

I agree, there are a couple other tests that might be the same.

The usage of common.PORT could cause undesired port collisions when run in parallel. The following test was moved to sequential. test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js Ref: #12376

lpinca · 2017-05-13T16:47:08Z

@arturgvieira I merged #12452 because

It was opened first.
It was already reviewed.
It was @rafaelfragosom's first contribution.

Hope you don't mind.

arturgvieira-zz · 2017-05-13T22:19:09Z

I don't mind.

* add `mustCall` and `mustNotCall` to all callbacks * added `known_issue` for port binding PR-URL: nodejs#13100 Refs: nodejs#13055 Refs: nodejs#12999 Refs: nodejs#13526 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>

* add `mustCall` and `mustNotCall` to all callbacks * added `known_issue` for port binding PR-URL: #13100 Refs: #13055 Refs: #12999 Refs: #13526 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>

* add `mustCall` and `mustNotCall` to all callbacks * added `known_issue` for port binding PR-URL: nodejs#13100 Refs: nodejs#13055 Refs: nodejs#12999 Refs: nodejs#13526 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>

* add `mustCall` and `mustNotCall` to all callbacks * added `known_issue` for port binding PR-URL: #13100 Refs: #13055 Refs: #12999 Refs: #13526 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>

* add `mustCall` and `mustNotCall` to all callbacks * added `known_issue` for port binding Backport-PR-URL: #14327 PR-URL: #13100 Refs: #13055 Refs: #12999 Refs: #13526 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label May 12, 2017

lpinca reviewed May 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

mscdex added dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP. cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. labels May 12, 2017

lpinca reviewed May 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

arturgvieira-zz changed the title ~~test: replace port in dgram shared ports test~~ test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential May 13, 2017

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential

4d175de

The usage of common.PORT could cause undesired port collisions when run in parallel. The following test was moved to sequential. test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js Ref: #12376

lpinca approved these changes May 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

arturgvieira-zz closed this May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz deleted the commonPort08-branch branch May 13, 2017 22:19

refack mentioned this pull request May 19, 2017

test,dgram: harden test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js #13100

Merged

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca May 12, 2017

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

gibfahn commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017

lpinca May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017

lpinca May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

Conversation

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca May 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

gibfahn commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca May 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lpinca May 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lpinca May 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 • edited Loading

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

gibfahn commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lpinca commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

arturgvieira-zz commented May 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading