test(iroh-blobs): comment out ignored test (that is not a flaky test)

[matheus23]

Description

There's this test that was introduced in the local_pool PR.
It was ignored via #[ignore = "todo"]. Notably, it's not flaky, it always fails.
Our flaky tests are run with cargo nextest run --run-ignored all [...]. We can't be more specific with the ignored tests. The only options are default, ignored-only and all.
This kind of test is really hard to write. IIUC, #[should_panic] can only test for the panic happening in the thread that the test is initiated in, it doesn't detect panics that are thrown in threads spawned from the test. I assume this is the reason writing this test was abandoned.

Keeping this test with the #[ignore = "todo"] on it means we're always running it in our flaky test suite, which is confusing. We thought this test was flaky, but it's not. IMO it's better to comment it out/remove it than to pollute our flaky test results.

Breaking Changes

None

Notes & open questions

In this PR I'm commenting this test. Should we remove it instead?
Or do people have ideas on how to make this test work?
Do we have an idea what we're expecting of our LocalPool implementation? Should a panic on one of the threads cause a panic in the finish() function?

Change checklist

• Self-review.
• [ ] Documentation updates following the style guide, if relevant.
• [ ] Tests if relevant.
• All breaking changes documented.

[github-actions]

Documentation for this PR has been generated and is available at: https://n0-computer.github.io/iroh/pr/2559/docs/iroh/

Last updated: 2024-08-01T07:10:47Z

[divagant-martian]

personally agree.

Having a test that always fails makes it harder to identify real flakes vs outright broken stuff failing 100% of the time. As @matheus23 said: alarm fatigue

[matheus23]

The irony of a new flaky test keeping this PR from being merged 🙃