-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 512
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
fix(cockroachdb): Fixes cockroachdb wait strategy handling #2456
Merged
mdelapenya
merged 10 commits into
testcontainers:main
from
bearrito:bug/withwaitstrategydeadline
Jun 11, 2024
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
85e5e70
Fixes cockroachdb wait strategy handling
4663d37
Clarify test intent
c12cb33
Merge in default strategy to get connection
d131370
Use subtests
9789f92
Separate out Connection logic
9b66353
Feedback from PR
5150d9d
Merge branch 'main' into bug/withwaitstrategydeadline
2992689
Honor default settings
c1851a0
fix: make lint
mdelapenya 0c35c64
Merge branch 'main' into bug/withwaitstrategydeadline
mdelapenya File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to exclude the wait.ForHTTP here? IIUC, if there is a waitingFor, we are adding the SQL wait plus the defined one. If there is no waitingFor, we are adding the default wait (http + sql). Is it intended to remove the http one in the case the user provides a waitingFor? I think we should append the user-defined one to the default. Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you suggesting we do this ?
I think you end up with the same thing.
Case 1: No Waiting for defined -> You get HTTP and SQL Waits
Case 2: A Wait is defined -> You get whatever the user passes in and SQL.
If that approach reads better I'm good with it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, I can look in the source, but I might as well ask is
wait.ForAll
linear-ish eg if is FIFO or LIFO or in parallel ?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They are not run in parallel, so FIFO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's exactly my point: we lose here the original waitFor.HTTP, right? Is this intended?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's what I originally had, but removed it. I have no problem switching it back.
Two arguments for/against:
It almost seems like what would be better would something like
Where we could just add the deadline to the existing wait strategy (assuming it exists).
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @bearrito sorry for the radio silence, May was a month in which I combined PTO and full-focus on an eventual v1 release of testcontainers-go. My apologies.
The wait.ForAll strategy comes with a deadline to be applied to all its children, so you could leverage that.