test: fix child-process-fork-regr-gh-2847 #5121
Conversation
mscdex
added
child_process
|
This one has been failing a lot on And here's a stress test using current master: (CI is closed off from public view for another couple of days until the security release of node is out, but I'll summarize the results here.) |
|
A change that just landed on master today was to mark this test as flaky in |
|
I stopped the master branch stress test because the test failed 5 times out of 9 runs. So there's the unsurprising confirmation that the test is highly flaky in current master. With this fix in place, the stress test has run 250 times without a single failure. So there's confirmation that this fix improves the situation. |
|
@santigimeno Once you push the change to the |
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status.
santigimeno
force-pushed
the
child-process-fork-regr-gh-2847
branch
from
cf59b37
to
65de3e4
Compare
|
@Trott PR updated. Thanks! |
|
Has this been stress tested on Windows? Also, I know this commit didn't change this part, but I'd be a bit concerned about the low timeout value (especially on pi1). |
|
Stress tests on: |
| console.log(err); | ||
| sendcount++; | ||
| }); | ||
| // Send 2 handles to make `process.disconnect()` wait |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand this comment. Where does the test call process.disconnect()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bnoordhuis The original version of that comment landed in 36b969f and was authored by @indutny. I think it might be referring to target.disconnect() being called in lib/internal/child_process.js in channel.onread() but I'm not actually sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, what @Trott says. It was in the original version of the test. I can try to find out the reason
|
It looks like the pi1 stress test ran 0 times? |
|
@mscdex That's what happens when I tell the test runner to run the test |
|
I'm ok with the change provided it still catches the original problem and it passes on AIX. CI run on AIX here: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-aix/37/ (unfortunately is does take a while to run) |
|
LGTM |
|
I confirmed that the test still fails (as expected) in Node.js v3.3.1 (with ES6-isms removed from LGTM but awaiting AIX results... |
|
lgtm tests still passs on AIX. |
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status. PR-URL: nodejs#5121 Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Fixes: nodejs#3635
|
Landed in 4e4b260 Feels good to get that one off the flaky list...Thanks, @santigimeno ! |
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status. PR-URL: #5121 Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Fixes: #3635
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status. PR-URL: #5121 Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Fixes: #3635
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status. PR-URL: #5121 Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Fixes: #3635
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2. It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced and passes afterwards. Remove test from parallel.status. PR-URL: #5121 Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Fixes: #3635
According to the explanation in nodejs#3635#issuecomment-157714683 And as a continuation to nodejs#5422 we also ignore EMFILE "No more file descriptors are available,so no more files can be opened" PR-URL: nodejs#12698 Fixes: nodejs#10286 Refs: nodejs#3635 (comment) Refs: nodejs#5178 Refs: nodejs#5179 Refs: nodejs#4005 Refs: nodejs#5121 Refs: nodejs#5422 Refs: nodejs#12621 (comment) Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
According to the explanation in #3635#issuecomment-157714683 And as a continuation to #5422 we also ignore EMFILE "No more file descriptors are available,so no more files can be opened" PR-URL: #12698 Fixes: #10286 Refs: #3635 (comment) Refs: #5178 Refs: #5179 Refs: #4005 Refs: #5121 Refs: #5422 Refs: #12621 (comment) Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
The test would sometimes time out on some platforms. Take the initial
version of the test and instead of sending 100 handles, just send 2.
It still fails when run with the code before the change was introduced
and passes afterwards.