Skip to content

test: reduce commit wait time flaky test TestReadingUnresolvedTransactions #18017

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal commented Mar 24, 2025

Description

This PR addresses the flakiness in TestReadingUnresolvedTransactions

The test was intermittently failing with the following error:

Error in commit: read tcp 127.0.0.1:56260->127.0.0.1:17038: use of closed network connection

The failure occurred because VTGate resolved the commit outside of the current session received via the transaction watcher, leading to an unexpected connection closure on the current commit session.

To fix this, the commit wait time has been reduced to minimize the likelihood of transaction getting resolved via transaction resolution route.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Mar 24, 2025

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Mar 24, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Mar 24, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 24, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.58%. Comparing base (470671c) to head (cba4d96).
Report is 38 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #18017   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.58%   67.58%           
=======================================
  Files        1598     1598           
  Lines      260270   260304   +34     
=======================================
+ Hits       175902   175931   +29     
- Misses      84368    84373    +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Component: Query Serving Type: Testing Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Mar 24, 2025
@@ -1065,7 +1065,7 @@ func TestReadingUnresolvedTransactions(t *testing.T) {
// We want to delay the commit on one of the shards to simulate slow commits on a shard.
twopcutil.WriteTestCommunicationFile(t, twopcutil.DebugDelayCommitShard, "80-")
defer twopcutil.DeleteFile(twopcutil.DebugDelayCommitShard)
twopcutil.WriteTestCommunicationFile(t, twopcutil.DebugDelayCommitTime, "5")
twopcutil.WriteTestCommunicationFile(t, twopcutil.DebugDelayCommitTime, "2")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Won't this make the test more flaky? We are checking later that the commit is still unresolved and this is the amount of time we delay the commit by. So reducing it will make the test more flaky

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should instead increase the unhealthy threshold so that vtgate doesn't fix the transaction outside of the commit flow.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Other test depends they resolve faster. I can take a look.
But this is enough time as we wait for 1sec only before checking the state. So keeping the delay for 5s would not help.

Copy link
Member

@frouioui frouioui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should run this in CI several times to ensure it's no longer flaky

@frouioui frouioui modified the milestones: v22.0.0, v23.0.0 Apr 1, 2025
@frouioui frouioui added the Backport to: release-22.0 Needs to be backport to release-22.0 label Apr 1, 2025
This was referenced Apr 1, 2025
@frouioui frouioui mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2025
35 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 Backport to: release-22.0 Needs to be backport to release-22.0 Component: Query Serving Type: Testing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants