Investigate flaky parallel/test-debug-port-cluster #6754
Labels
test
Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Comments
|
/cc @nodejs/testing |
|
I just saw this on FreeBSD too FWIW: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-freebsd/2478/nodes=freebsd10-64/tapTestReport/test.tap-373/ |
Trott
changed the title
Trott
added
freebsd
|
And SmartOS: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-smartos/2496/nodes=smartos14-64/console Something is definitely wrong with that test.... |
|
Er...uh...or perhaps equally likely, something is wrong with the code base but the test only catches it intermittently... |
Trott
added a commit
to Trott/io.js
that referenced
this issue
May 15, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: nodejs#6754
2 tasks
|
This appears to fix the flakiness in this test: #6769 |
Trott
added a commit
to Trott/io.js
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: nodejs#6754
Trott
added a commit
to Trott/io.js
that referenced
this issue
May 18, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: nodejs#6754 PR-URL: nodejs#6769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 23, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: #6754 PR-URL: #6769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 23, 2016
Remove port increment by `1337` which appears to sometimes result in a port that is already in use. There is no reason not to use `common.PORT`. PR-URL: #6769 Fixes: #6754 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Fishrock123
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 23, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: #6754 PR-URL: #6769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Fishrock123
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 23, 2016
Remove port increment by `1337` which appears to sometimes result in a port that is already in use. There is no reason not to use `common.PORT`. PR-URL: #6769 Fixes: #6754 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
rvagg
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 2, 2016
The test is currently flaky and CI provides no real information because the test times out rather than failing on an assertion. Add logging to gather more information about the failure. Refs: #6754 PR-URL: #6769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
rvagg
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 2, 2016
Remove port increment by `1337` which appears to sometimes result in a port that is already in use. There is no reason not to use `common.PORT`. PR-URL: #6769 Fixes: #6754 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Example failure on CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-plinux/2460/nodes=ppcbe-ubuntu1404/tapTestReport/test.tap-181/
/cc @bnoordhuis
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: